JUDGMENT 1. The appellants by filing this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has assailed their judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby sentenced them to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to suffer further imprisonment of one month. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that the appellants along with other accused persons were tried for the offence under Section 148,307, 149 of IPC and also under Section 9B of the Act. Learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons including appellants from the charges punishable under Sections 148, and 307/149 of IPC. However, these two appellants have been convicted under Section 9B of the Act. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the pieces and garbage of the explosive substance was not sent for examination to Forensic Science Labortary in order to ascertain whether the substance, which was seized was containing the explosive substance or not and, hence, according to learned counsel, the conviction of appellants under Section 9B of IPC cannot be accorded. 4. On the other hand Sushri Sudha Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State, has argued in support of the impugned judgment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. On going through the findings of learned Trial Court in para 28, this Court finds that admittedly the pieces and garbage of the alleged explosive substance was not sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory in order to ascertain whether it contains any explosive substance or not. The learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 9B of the Act.