Judgment Five accused were charge-sheeted under sections 5 and 12 of the Indian Explosives Act. The Trial Magistrate acquitted A-3 to A-5 but convicted A-1 and A-2 under the said sections. The facts of the case briefly stated are that A-1 obtained a licence from the District Magistrate for selling explosives at Nidubrolu village. It is alleged on behalf of the prosecution that A-1 instead of selling the explosives at the specified place occupied a portion of the building belonging to P.W. 9 at Ponnur, stocked his explosives there and began to sell them on 2nd November, 1953. On that very day while A-2 was making an experiment with what is described as an aeroplane, it missed his hand and flew into the building and set fire to other explosives stocked therein. In the result, the entire building was destroyed by fire. On these allegations A-1 and A-2 and the other accused who had been acquitted were charge-sheeted for contravention of the provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the Indian Explosives Act. Both the Courts below have found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offences charged. The learned advocate for the petitioners contended that sections 5 and 12 of the Indian Explosives Act come into operation only when the accused are charged with contravention of any of the rules. The charge-sheet framed against the petitioners does not mention any specific rule for the contravention of which the petitioners might be held to be guilty. What is mentioned in the charge-sheet is that A-1 had contravened condition No.11 of the licence granted to him. Now rule 93 framed under section 5 of the Indian Explosives Act provides: “Every licence granted under these rules shall be liable to be cancelled by order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule thereunder, or of any condition contained in such licence, or by order of the Central Government if at any time the continuance of the licence in the hands of the licensee is deemed objectionable.” If as has been held by the Courts below condition 11 of the licence was contravened the only consequence of it would seem to be cancellation of the licence and not any punishment under section 5. The learned advocate for the State has not been able to cite any rule for the contravention of which the petitioners might be held to have been guilty. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge under sections 5 and 12 of the Indian Explosives Act. Fine, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioners. A.S.R. ----- Revision allowed.