JUDGMENT Accused 1 to 5 were charged for offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The facts of the prosecution disclose that on 10-11-1997 at 7.30 p.m. Accused 1 is the driver of the jeep bearing No. KL-11/C-5925, accused 2 to 5 are the inmates of the jeep. The jeep was stopped a Dulame Check-post by the police accused 1 did not show licence. On suspicion the jeep was checked, country made bombs were concealed under the seat. There were knives and iron bars. In presence of punch witnesses P.W. 1 and C.W. 1 the check was conducted and panchanama was drawn at Ex. P. 1. 2. It is alleged that the jeep was a stolen jeep but the investigation agency has not conducted any investigation in that regard to prove that the accused were in unlawful possession of the jeep. 3. On the report of P.W. 5 who conducted check, FIR is registered. On the completion of investigation, the charge-sheet is filed. The Trial Court finds that there were five inmates and only 3 bombs were found hence comes to the conclusion that conscious possession of explosives by the accused is not proved and acquitted them. 4. The evidence of P.W. 1 the panch witness and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 5 who were the members of the checking party convincingly discloses that in the jeep 3 country made bombs were found and accused were travelling in the jeep. The vehicle is not shown to be a public service vehicle. All the accused persons are jointly travelling in the jeep, therefore from the narration of facts, it is to be held that all the accused persons with the common intention of carrying bombs and other weapons by concealing them under the seat. In the cross-examination of the witnesses, it is not the stand of the accused that they were not jointly travelling. When the prosecution has proved that all the accused persons were jointly travelling together presumption would arise that all the accused are deemed to be in possession of bombs. The onus will be on the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused have not produced any contra evidence in order to rebut the presumption. In that view, the judgment of acquittal rendered is bad in law. The same is set aside. 5. Ex. The onus will be on the accused to rebut the presumption. The accused have not produced any contra evidence in order to rebut the presumption. In that view, the judgment of acquittal rendered is bad in law. The same is set aside. 5. Ex. P. 5 is the certificate issued by F.S.L. to show that the bombs seized are explosive substances, therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of possession of the country bombs by all the accused persons. The accused are convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each.