ORDER Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal Revision is directed a gainst the order dated 11.9.2001 passed in S.T. No. 26 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application is that the Officer-in- Charge of Heredari Police Station alongwith other police officials were on patrolling duty on 13.1.2000 and as soon asthey reached near village Kokaru, he received information that a Maruti Van No. BR-14E-4241 is coming with some terrorists, who are carrying explosive substance and after some time the said vehicle was seen when the driver of the said vehicle was signaled to stop but he tried to flee away towards Tandawa. Thereafter, the informant and other police officials surrounded the vehicle which was stopped later on and the persons boarded in the vehicle were apprehended. They disclosed their names as Javedh Akhter, Samim Ansari and Aslam Hussain. Four Gunny bags were recovered containing explosive materials in a Cartoon. 3. Accordingly, the seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses. The accused persons failed to produce any valid paper or document with regard to the huge materials of explosive and on enquiry, the accused persons accepted their guilt and also admitted that on the instruction of the leaders of M. C. C. they have brought the same from one Md. Munir (Petitioner). It is also stated that they had purchased the said materials by paying Rs. 1,000/-. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. 4. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge- sheet against all the accused persons including the petitioner. Cognizance was also taken by the Court below. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for discharge which was rejected by the order impugned. Hence, this revision. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted, at the very outset, that those explosives were purchased by the accused persons for the use of same in some unlicensed factory and a sum of Rs, 50,000/- was paid through cheque dated 11.1.2000 which was issued by the Director of the said factory and cheque was also verified by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It was further contended that at best the accused persons will be held liable for the offence under Section 9(b) and 9(c) of the Explosives Act and no case under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act is made out as there is nothing to show that that the said explosive was kept for endangering the human life and the property. The petitioner being the explosive dealer and the said detonators are used in the mining operation for blasting and crushing big boulders and stones. 6. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. contended before me that there is sufficient materials collected during investigation for proceeding of the case under trial and there is no illegality in the order impugned. The learned Court below also held that the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC are not applicable in this case. 7. From perusal, it is apparent that the accused persons were carrying the explosive in huge quantity on the Maruti van without any authenticity and the petitioner and other had supplied the said explosives to the accused persons without having proper and valid licence. It has come during investigation that the said explosives were carrying by the accused persons on the command of the leader of the M.C.C. organisation. The said materials were highly explosive material and they are generally used for exploding and also used for destroying vehicle by preparing land mines explosion. Thus, it is manifest that there is sufficient material to show that these explosives are also used for endangering the human life and property. Hence, in my view, the offence under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act is applicable in this case and the learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge after considering the materials in detail. 8. It is also settled that materials on record capable of inferring strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing of charge. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision application, which is accord ingly dismissed.