Judgment :- S.K. CHAKRABARTI, J. 1. The present revisional application under Section 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the prayer for quashing the Central Crime Station, Aberdeen Bazar FIR No. 546 of 2011 dated 21.06.2011 under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code including order dated 24th August, 2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair in G.R. Case No. 1354 of 2011 arising out of the aforesaid case. 2. The petitioner contends that he was granted a quarry permit for running quarry in the land bearing Survey No. 1/P at village Brookshabad for extraction of boulders from the hill. The tenure of said permit has been extended from time to time and lastly on 02.05.2011. He was also granted explosive licence bearing No. 44/99 for use of 15 Kgs of explosives and 120 Detonators at any one time in a month. He runs his business as per administrative order of the Executive Engineer, South Andaman Division and hand over the explosive to the operator approved by the competent authority. After blasting the quarry products including the big and small soil coming out of such blasting have to be removed and for that purpose he was also granted transit pass from time to time for carrying the boulders of different sizes and loose soil and in this way from 11.05.2011 to 14.06.2011 he has conducted 300 trips by truck and for each occasion transit permit was duly issued by the concerned authority. 3. He has claimed that those 300 trips of loaded materials related to blast between 11.05.2011 and 14.06.2011. Thereafter, there was only one blast on 22.06.2011 and for removal of the entire materials about 25 more trips are required. 4. On 11.07.2011, upon receipt of summon, the petitioner visited the Police Station, Central Crime Station to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police(CID), Port Blair to give evidence relating to the case being FIR No. 546 of 2011 dated 21.06.2011. But subsequently he was arrested and detained in connection with the above case. 5. 4. On 11.07.2011, upon receipt of summon, the petitioner visited the Police Station, Central Crime Station to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police(CID), Port Blair to give evidence relating to the case being FIR No. 546 of 2011 dated 21.06.2011. But subsequently he was arrested and detained in connection with the above case. 5. In fact, on 21.06.2011, a police party awaited for arrival of MV Nicobar ship from Kolkata and on arrival they checked the container of V.M.R and detected that a person named Shri G.S.Babu claims himself as Manager of V.M.R was carrying 04 plastic drums for the purpose of loading in the truck bearing No. AN-01-E-1874. There were four plastic drums on the said truck. 6. On enquiry, the Manager could not offer any satisfactory explanation about the contents of those drums. The lids of all the four drums were then opened and found that there were few bags of grease but there was Gelatine sticks, Detonators and Ammonium Nitrate the total quantity of which would be 2463 nos of Gelatine Sticks, 5995 Detonators and 10000 kgs of Ammonium Nitrate. The said Manager failed to produce any permit or licence for possessing huge quantity of aforesaid explosive substances which was seized as per seizure list by registering aforesaid case. 7. In course of investigation, it was revealed that the said consignment of Gelatine and Detonators were loaded in the truck for the purpose of delivery to the consignees i.e. M/s Shri Venkateswara Store, Junglighat, M/s Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Store, Phongy Choung and to one Abhirami, R/o Dairyfarm though he died in the month of March, 2011. The said shopkeepers were keeping Gelatine, Detonators and Ammonium Nitrate in their respective godowns for handing over to one Selvam and his authorized agent namely Mageshwaran and Ammonium Nitrate was due to be delivered to A.P.Narayan residing at Babu Line. On interrogation of the owner of V.M.R Shipping agency of Chennai, it was revealed that the above consignments of Gelatine and Detonators were procured by Mr. S. Selvam of Paramakudi, Dist. Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu from Abbas Manthiry of Idaya, Melloor, Chennai and packed in four plastic drums and deposited in the godown of M/s VMR Shipping Agency, Chennai and the consignment was booked in the name of Abhirami for sending it to Andaman in the godown of SVT. S. Selvam of Paramakudi, Dist. Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu from Abbas Manthiry of Idaya, Melloor, Chennai and packed in four plastic drums and deposited in the godown of M/s VMR Shipping Agency, Chennai and the consignment was booked in the name of Abhirami for sending it to Andaman in the godown of SVT. The consignment of Ammonium Nitrate was procured by A.P. Narayan who was financed by G. Thirumoorthy for blasting in quarry through his finance based at Chennai at the cost of 2,10,000/-, which was paid to Balasubramaniam, proprietor Ramanee Enterprises,Vellore, Tamil Nadu in lieu of blank cheque provided by A.P. Narayan, Resident of Round Basti, Port Blair. After receipt of transaction through ICICI Bank in the account bearing no. 6140005005193 of Balasubramaniam, he purchased 200 bags of Ammonium Nitrate from Aiswarya Enterprises, Fertilizer Dealers, Vellore through tax invoice no. 089 dated 03.06.2011 at the rate of Rs. 350/-per bag for onward transmission under cash bill No. 350 dated 03.06.2011 at the rate of Rs. 950/-per bag to A.P. Narayan, Aberdeen Bazar, Port Blair, Andaman through VMR Shipping Agency at Chennai. The VMR Shipping Agency has sent 200 bags of Ammonium Nitrate in the name of A.P. Narayan by covering it in another plastic bag and disclosed as salt in the manifest and booked the container with GATI ZIPP. But Mr. M.A. Sudha Nandan, Manager VMR who received four drums from Selvam prepared a hand written note in tamil language and sent to the Manager S.G. Babu, Port Blair declaring the four drums containing grease in the name of Abhirami in the container of SVT to be shifted to the SVT godown but did not mention about the exact contents of the drums in the manifest given to GATI ZIPP. Moreover, he disclosed 200 bags of Ammonium Nitrate as salt and packed in the container owned by SKVS for onward delivery to Mr. A.P. Narayan. In course of investigation it was further revealed that the said Ammonium Nitrate was brought for clandestine supply to quarry operators without valid licence or permission. The present accused being the owner of such a quarry was arrested and remanded on judicial custody as co-accused. 8. On further investigation, it was revealed that the present petitioner Sanjay Choudhury received 20 kgs of gelatine and 80 detonators during the month of May and June, 2011. The present accused being the owner of such a quarry was arrested and remanded on judicial custody as co-accused. 8. On further investigation, it was revealed that the present petitioner Sanjay Choudhury received 20 kgs of gelatine and 80 detonators during the month of May and June, 2011. As per expert opinion, 450 metric tons of materials are to be removed after explosion of 15 kgs of gelatine sticks with the help of 60 nos of Detonators and for removal of the same 90 transit permits are required but during the relevant time the petitioner herein removed 1905 metric tons of materials collected after blasting and carried the same with the help of 395 transit passes. Thus, there were 1495 metric tones of excess materials of blasting operation for the purpose of which 305 transit passes were obtained by him. The carriage of such huge materials further indicated that for the purpose of additional blasting the petitioner accused procured at least 49 kgs of gelatine sticks and 199 nos of electric detonators by such clandestine deal with other co-accused. I.O. has submitted charge sheet pending receipt of forensic expert report. 9. On the basis of such incriminating materials, the petitioner is now detained in judicial custody. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has claimed that the FIR does not disclose any prima-facie material for commission of any offence under Section 6 of the Explosive Substance Act. Since no such explosive Substance has been seized from the possession of the present accused he cannot be prosecuted as abettor for supply of such materials. The petitioner being a responsible citizen involved in active politics should not be unnecessarily detained in judicial custody for indefinite period. On the basis of such cryptic investigation, there is no basis for submitting final report on such offence without any prima-facie materials. Continuation of such proceeding should, therefore, be treated as abuse of the process of law and to prevent it, the court should exercise its discretionary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by way of alternative relief, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail. 10. Continuation of such proceeding should, therefore, be treated as abuse of the process of law and to prevent it, the court should exercise its discretionary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by way of alternative relief, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail. 10. On the contrary learned lawyer for the State has opposed the move and claimed that at this the proceeding should not be quashed because from the relevant case diary it will appear that sufficient incriminating materials are forthcoming to justify detention of accused in custody in quest of truth behind such illegal transportation and delivery of huge quantity of explosive substances resulting thereby loss of revenue and ecological imbalance for unlimited number of explosion in the quarry in flagrant violation of the monthly quota mentioned in the licence. There is also probability of using such unauthorized quantity of explosive substance for some terrorist activities which cannot be ruled out though prima-facie it appears that such clandestine transactions was made for delivery to the quarry owners of the islands. 11. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of learned advocates of both the parties, perused case diary and other connected materials on record including LCR. Provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act are quoted below for the purpose of better appreciation. “5. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances – Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, by punished – (a) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; (b) in the case of any special category explosive substance, with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 6. 6. Punishment of abettors – Any person who by the supply of or solicitation for money, the providing of premises, the supply of materials, or in any manner whatsoever, procures, counsels, aids, abets or is accessory to, the commission of any offence under this Act shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.” 12. It appears that recovery of explosive substances must give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object. From the result of investigation, it appears that large number of quarry owners were procuring huge quantity of explosive substances beyond permissible limits by clandestine means for their wrongful gain at the cost of wrongful loss of revenue to the State. In fact, under Rule 201(6) of Andaman and Nicobar Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966, there is specific provision for realization of additional revenue for possessing or using explosive substance in excess of the permissible limits. Said provision becomes inoperative for such secret dealing of the accused persons. Since the persons dealing with such explosive substances have not approached the State for payment of excess revenue and procurement of huge quantities of such materials will be treated as meant for illegal purposes of wrongful gain to the owners and to wrongful loss to the State. 13. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has further contended that the State can take appropriate action for recovery of revenue but I think such an argument is not tenable at present because the petitioner has not admitted that he is in possession of the seized explosive substance. His case hinges on the materials collected as abettor of the alleged offence of clandestine transaction of huge quantity of explosive substances for his business purposes or otherwise. 14. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has further contended that the total quantity of explosive substances as shown in the statement contained in the English version of the FIR is not a faithful translation of the contents thereof and as such the same should not be relied upon. From the relevant seizure list prima-facie it appears that the investigation agency has seized huge quantity of explosive substances. From the relevant seizure list prima-facie it appears that the investigation agency has seized huge quantity of explosive substances. As such the total quantity of seized amount will not alter the nature of alleged offence and revisional court cannot look into the details at this early stage of investigation. 15. It was argued by learned lawyer for the petitioner that the investigation authority has sent the seized articles for chemical examination and without the report of the chemical examiner, it cannot be presumed that the seized articles were really explosive substances. On the basis of such surmises and conjuncture, the prosecution cannot submit any charge sheet and detain the present petitioner in the custody in the name of prolonged trial in anticipation of favourable FSL report which amounts to abuse of the process of law. It appears that as per seized memo relating to the Panchnama dated 21.06.2011 the articles seized from the possession of accused Shri S.G.Babu were certified by the company Vetrivel Explosive Private Limited as explosive substance. This is sufficient for submission of final report pending report of forensic experts and such argument is not tenable. 16. Learned lawyer for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the principles laid down in the cases of AIR 1981 SC 1062 (1) (Mohammed Usman Mohammed Hussain Maniyar and another v. The State of Maharashtra), 2003 Cri.L.J. 3354 (Dr. Kodapally Venkateswarulu –vs- Kodela Siva Prasad Rao and others), 1959 Cri.L.J. (Vol.60, C.N.273) (Rajani Kanta Mandal –vs- The State of Bihar), 1952 Cri.L.J. 72(C.N.23) (The State of Bihar –vs- Amir Hasan), 1990 Cri.L.J. 2385 (Nitai Singh –vs- State of Assam), 1973 Cri. L.J. 403(V.79 C.124) (Kumar and another –vs-The State of A.P.), 2010 Cri.L.J. 1725 (Jai Singh Punia –vs- State of Rajasthan), AIR 2007 SC 1117 ( Harishchandra Prasad Mani and others –vs- State of Jharkhand and Another) etc. to substantiate his contention that cognizance cannot be taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of incomplete report which is liable to be quashed in as much as unless the chemical examination report of the seized articles are received by the I.O, no case under Section 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act can be made out against the present petitioner. 17. Learned lawyer for the State, however, has argued that in all the above cases, the ratio was enunciated at-post trial period. 17. Learned lawyer for the State, however, has argued that in all the above cases, the ratio was enunciated at-post trial period. Therefore, the said principles are not applicable at the retrial stage in the context of prima-facie material collected against the present petitioner. He has also drawn my attention to the principles laid down in 1996(2) SCC 37 (State of H.P. –vs- Pirthi Chand and Another). Para 12 of the said case is quoted below:- “12. It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High court before embarking to scrutinize the FIR/ charge-sheet/ complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases to settle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the offence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into cognizable offence. After the investigation is conducted (sic concluded) and the charge-sheet is laid, the prosecution produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that stage it is not the function of the court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict compliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its effect of noncompliance. It would be done after the trial is concluded. The court has to prima-facie consider from the averments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses on the record in support thereof whether court could take cognizance of the offence on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If it reaches a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out, no further act could be done except to quash the charge-sheet. But only in exceptional cases, i.e. in rarest of rare cases of malafide initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengeance process of criminal is availed of in laying a complaint or FIR itself does not disclose at all any cognizable offence – the court may embark upon the consideration thereof and exercise the power.” 18. In the facts and circumstances of the above case, I find much substance in the contention of the learned lawyer for the State. In the facts and circumstances of the above case, I find much substance in the contention of the learned lawyer for the State. I also hold that the ratio of the aforesaid cases referred to and relied upon by the State has very much applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has explained in para 14 of the revisional application that after blasting the quarry products which includes boulders of big and small and soil which falls due to blasting and thereafter due to porous and loose soil was to be disposed off to different parties by truck and for that purpose transit pass is required to be obtained is purely a case of disputed fact which cannot be decided by the revisional court. 19. Learned lawyer for the State has, however, submitted that after the blasting only the boulders of different sizes are carried for business purposes to different places by virtue of the transit pass and the loose soil need not be removed from the site. It is a false plea taken by the accused to justify procurement of 395 transit passes during the period from May to June, 2011 for carrying blasting materials, though only 19 transit passes were actually required for the purpose of removal of blasted materials against the release of 15 kgs of gelatine sticks and 60 nos. of detonator materials at a time. It is also purely a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided by the revisional court. 20. The petitioner accused may raise the issue before the learned court below who will decide whether cognizance will be taken on the basis of incriminating materials collected against him. Therefore, I hold that arrest or detention of the accused in custody is not based on mere suspicion but on the basis of tangible incriminating materials as an abettor. The alleged offence has far reaching social, economic and ecological impact. Investigation of such cases should not be nipped in the bud. 21. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I hold that there is no merit in this revisional application at this stage, which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. It is made clear that the learned trial court will not be influenced in any way by the observations made by this court in course of disposal of the case. 22. C.D and LCR be returned. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. It is made clear that the learned trial court will not be influenced in any way by the observations made by this court in course of disposal of the case. 22. C.D and LCR be returned. 23. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertakings.