ORDER 1. Heard Sri Bharat Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Mines & Geology Department, Govt. of Bihar. 2. The petitioner, in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 14-05-2010 passed in Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 442 of 2008 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura (hereinafter referred to as “Magistrate”), whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Explosives Act”). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken a piece of land for excavation of stones and while excavating, he was using explosives substances. However, after an inspection, made by the officials of Mines Department, a report was submitted and thereafter, the present F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Magistrate has committed serious error by taking cognizance under Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosives Act. He submits that Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosives Act applies only in a case where a person is alleged to have unlawfully and maliciously used explosives substances. In the present case, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no element of malicious act on the part of the petitioner and in absence of such allegation, order of cognizance under Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosives Act is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with a person, who was having valid license for explosives substances and as such, the petitioner was using the same. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of cognizance. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have also perused the materials available on record. Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, Special Public Prosecutor has drown my attention to the statement made in paragraph – 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 3rd January, 2014, wherein, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner was not having license for using explosives substances. 5. Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, Special Public Prosecutor has drown my attention to the statement made in paragraph – 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 3rd January, 2014, wherein, it has been categorically stated that the petitioner was not having license for using explosives substances. 5. Be that as it may, after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and at the moment, it is difficult to examine whether the petitioner had maliciously used the explosives substances or not. These questions are required to be examined by the trial court during the trial. 6. I do not find any apparent error in the order of cognizance. 7. The petition stands dismissed.