JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., is filed by the appellant/accused, challenging the judgment, dated 11.11.2009, passed in S.C.No.419 of 2008 by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby, the Court below convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two (02) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three month. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that the findings of the Court below are contrary to the law and the facts of the case. No panch witnesses were examined in this case. No sanction was accorded by the Collector and District Magistrate concerned to prosecute the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, as required under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. All the witnesses examined in this case were police personnel and no independent witnesses were examined. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court below erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as aforementioned and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against the appellant/accused. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State would submit that there are direct witnesses to the alleged offence. On 01.02.2002 at 03:45 PM, 30 gelatin sticks, 115 detonators, 20 bundles of fuse wire and about 8 kilograms of Gun Powder were seized from the house of the appellant/accused, situated at GF-4, Gowtham Nagar, Filmnagar, Hyderabad. The same is substantiated by examining P.W.1 to P.W.4. There is also Ex.P.4 sanction order issued by the Collector and District Magistrate concerned under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to prosecute the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Court below, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused of the alleged offence. The prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Court below, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused of the alleged offence. There is no infirmity in the judgment under challenge and ultimately prayed to sustain the same. 5. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 01.02.2002 at 03:45 PM, 30 gelatin sticks, 115 detonators, 20 bundles of fuse wire and about 8 kilograms of Gun Powder were seized from the house of the appellant/accused situated at GF-4, Gowtham Nagar, Filmnagar, Hyderabad. Point:- 6. To prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P.1-Search proceedings, Ex.P.2-Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P.3-Reprot, Ex.P.4-Sanction Order, Ex.P.5-Explosive Expert Report, Ex.P.6-FSL Report and Ex.P.7-First Information Report. On behalf of the appellant/accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Point:- 6. To prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P.1-Search proceedings, Ex.P.2-Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P.3-Reprot, Ex.P.4-Sanction Order, Ex.P.5-Explosive Expert Report, Ex.P.6-FSL Report and Ex.P.7-First Information Report. On behalf of the appellant/accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 7. P.W.1-I.T.V.S.Suryanarayana deposed that he worked as the Inspector of Police, Task Force, East Zone, Hyderabad City, from April, 2000, to April, 2002; on 01.02.2002, at 02:15 PM, while he was in his office on duty, he received credible information that the appellant/accused was selling explosive substances without valid license; he secured two panch witnesses, drafted search proceedings under Ex.P.1, obtained signature of the panch witnesses on the same, reached the house of the appellant/accused, situated at GF-4, Gowtham Nagar, Filmnagar, Hyderabad, apprehended the appellant/accused, who was present at his house; on enquiry, the appellant/accused confessed about his guilt and produced two gunny bags and plastic carry bags containing 30 gelatin sticks, out of which, 21 gelatin sticks were embossed with the brand name ‘Sun brand tellgics 80”, eight were embossed with the brand name ‘Bell Gillgine-80 Bharat Explosives Limited’ and the remaining one was embossed with the brand name ‘Nobel Gel-80 HECLRIN’; the plastic bag contained 115 detonators, the gunny bag contained 20 bundles of fuse wire and the other gunny bag contained 16 packets of Gun Powder wrapped in polethene covers, each weighing about half kilogram; he drawn two gelatin sticks, two detonators, two pieces of fuse wire and two packets of Gun Powder as samples and sent the same to the Controller of Explosive Substances for examination and report; He seized the remaining explosive substances under Ex.P.2 seizure Panchanama and lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Banjarahills Police Station under Ex.P.3. He specifically deposed that when he questioned the appellant/accused about the license to sell the explosive substances, the appellant/accused stated that he had no license to sell the same. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined at length, nothing has come up to discard his testimony. P.W.1 categorically denied a suggestion that he left out the real culprits and filed a false case against the appellant/accused. He further denied a suggestion that he is deposing false against the appellant/accused. 8. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined at length, nothing has come up to discard his testimony. P.W.1 categorically denied a suggestion that he left out the real culprits and filed a false case against the appellant/accused. He further denied a suggestion that he is deposing false against the appellant/accused. 8. P.W.2-K.Sudershan deposed that he worked as Sub-Inspector of Banjarahills Police Station, Hyderabad City, from 19.06.2003 to 27.08.2005; he collected the Sanction Order from the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Ex.P.4 to prosecute the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; he also collected report from the Explosives expert under Ex.P.5 and FSL Report under Ex.P.6; after receipt of the said documents, he filed charge-sheet against the appellant/accused. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 categorically denied a suggestion that Ex.P.4-Sanction Order is created for the purpose of this case and no such sanction order was issued by the Collector and District Magistrate. 9. P.W.3-G.Ramesh deposed that he worked as Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjarahills Police Station, Hyderabad City, from May, 2000 to February, 2003; on 01.02.2002 at about 1845 hours, he received a complaint under Ex.P.3 from P.W.1. P.W.1 handed over Ex.P.1 Search Proceedings and Ex.P.2 Seizure Panchanama and the seized explosive substances to him; basing on Ex.P.3 report lodged by P.W.1, he registered a case in Crime No.62/2002 against the appellant/accused under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and issued FIR under Ex.P.7; later, he effected the arrest of the appellant/accused and produced him before the Magistrate concerned for judicial remand; he received the report of the explosives expert under Ex.P.5 and FSL report under Ex.P.6; As per Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, the material seized from the possession of the appellant/accused were explosive substances; After receipt of the reports, samples were destroyed by him in the interest of the public; and his successor filed the charge-sheet before the Court concerned. Though P.W.3 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discard his testimony. P.W.3 categorically denied a suggestion that the appellant/accused has nothing to do with the alleged seizure and that he is deposing falsehood. 10. Though P.W.3 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discard his testimony. P.W.3 categorically denied a suggestion that the appellant/accused has nothing to do with the alleged seizure and that he is deposing falsehood. 10. P.W.4-G.Narsaiah deposed that he worked as Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjarahills Police Station, Hyderabad City, from June, 2002 to July, 2004; He addressed a letter to the Collector and District Magistrate to accord permission for prosecuting the appellant/accused under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; and his successor in office received the sanction letter under Ex.P.4 from the Collector and District Magistrate concerned. 11. P.W.1 is the material witness in this case. He gave the details of the explosive substances found in the house of the appellant/accused and seizure of the same under a cover of Panchanama etc. There are no omissions and contradictions in his evidence. The accused was in his house during the alleged seizure of explosive substances from his house. There is no animosity or grudge or any other reason for P.W.1 to depose false against the appellant/accused. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. There is consistency and corroboration in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 12. It is contended on behalf of the appellant/accused that no sanction was accorded to prosecute the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, by the Collector and District Magistrate concerned. Ex.P.4 is the proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide said proceeding No.C4/2448/2003, dated 18.11.2003, according permission to the Inspector of Police, Banjarahills Police Station, Hyderabad, under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to prosecute the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. It is contended that Ex.P.4 Sanction Order is not signed by the Collector and District Magistrate concerned. Though Ex.P.4 was not signed by the Collector and District Magistrate concerned, it was attested by the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District, wherein, it was mentioned that the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District, after perusing and examining the records and facts of the case accorded permission under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to prosecute the appellant/accused under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. It is evident from Ex.P.5-Explosive Expert report that the explosives seized in this case are the explosives of Class 6 Division 1, as defined under Schedule I of the Explosives rules, 1983 and the Gun Powder seized is an explosive of Class I, as defined under Schedule I of the aforementioned Rules. 13. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the appellant/accused that no panch witnesses were examined in this case and that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are police personnel and no independent witness was examined. While dealing with the question of evidentiary value of the statements of Police Officers, the Apex Court, in Anil @ Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar v. State of Maharashtra (1996 (2) Supreme Court Cases 589), held that testimony of police officials are not liable to be discarded, merely because they are police officials. However, their evidence should be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. The Apex Court further held that the witnesses, being police officers, do not by itself create a doubt about their creditworthiness, if non-examination of Panch witnesses is explained satisfactorily. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:- "Indeed all the 5 prosecution witness who have been examined in support of search and seizure were members of the raiding party. They are all police officials. There is, however, no rule of law that the evidence of police officials has to be discarded or that it suffers from some inherent infirmity. Prudence, however, requires that the evidence of the police officials, who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case, needs to be carefully scrutinized and independently appreciated. The police officials do not suffer from any disability to give evidence and the mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness. We have carefully and critically analyzed the evidence of all the 5 police officials. There is nothing on the record to show that any one of them was hostile to be appellant and despite lengthy cross-examination their evidence has remained unshaken throughout. These witnesses have deposed in clear terms the details of the trap that was laid to apprehend the appellant and the manner in which he was apprehended. Their evidence regarding search and seizure of the weapons from the appellant is straightforward, consistent and specific. These witnesses have deposed in clear terms the details of the trap that was laid to apprehend the appellant and the manner in which he was apprehended. Their evidence regarding search and seizure of the weapons from the appellant is straightforward, consistent and specific. It inspires confidence and learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any serious, let alone fatal, infirmity in their evidence. In our opinion, the factum of search and seizure of the country-made revolver from the conscious possession of the appellant has been established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The explanation given by the prosecution, for the non-examination of the two panch witnesses, which is supported by the report Ext. 24 filed by PW 4 PI Gaikwad is satisfactory. The evidence on the record shows that the raiding party made sincere efforts to join with them two independent panchas at the time of search and seizure and they were so joined. They were also cited as prosecution witnesses and summoned to give evidence. However, despite diligent efforts made by the prosecuting agency to serve them, they could not be located or traced and therefore they could not be examined at the trial. In the face of the facts stated in report Ext. 24, the correctness of which has remained virtually unchallenged during the cross-examination of PW 4, the non-examination of the two panchas cannot be said to be on account of any oblique reason. Their non-production at the trail thus has not created any dent in the prosecution case. The prosecution cannot be accused of withholding these witnesses since it made every effort to trace and produce them at the trial but failed on account of the fact that they had left the addresses furnished by them at the time of search and their whereabouts could not be traced despite diligent efforts made in that behalf. We, therefore, do not find any reason to doubt the correctness of the prosecution version relating to the apprehension of the appellant, the search and seizure by the raiding party and the recovery from the appellant of the country-made revolver and cartridges for which he could produce no licence or authority because of the non- examination of the panch witnesses. We find that the evidence of PW 1 to PW 5 is reliable, cogent and trustworthy." (Emphasis supplied) 14. We find that the evidence of PW 1 to PW 5 is reliable, cogent and trustworthy." (Emphasis supplied) 14. Law is well settled that non-examination of panch witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case. However, in the absence of evidence of panch witnesses, evidence of official witnesses (police officials) is required to be scrutinized with due care and caution. The testimony of a witness cannot be brushed aside merely because he is a Police Officer. The credibility of the witnesses has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness. Therefore, wherever the evidence of police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction, even in absence of corroboration with the independent witnesses. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they are police officials and there is no rule of law or evidence, which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the sole testimony of the police officials. Where a police witness bore no grudge or animosity against the accused, his/her testimony, if otherwise reliable, can be believed. It may be indicated here that as a rule of prudence, corroboration of police witness probably by a reliable witness is desirable, but in all cases such corroboration cannot be insisted as a matter of course, because it may not be possible in all cases to get corroboration from an independent witness. The mere fact that the prosecution witnesses are police officers is not enough to discard their evidence in the absence of evidence of their hostility to the accused. In the instant case, the explanation given by the prosecution for non-examination of the panch witnesses is that their whereabouts were unknown to them. There is no animosity or grudge or any other reason for P.W.1 to depose falsely against the appellant/accused. Moreover, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, the police officers who personally conducted investigation in this case, have also no reason to foist a false case against the appellant/accused. There is no reason for the police officials to get huge quantity of explosives, i.e., 30 gelatin sticks, 115 detonators, 20 bundles of fuse wire and about 8 kilograms of Gun Powder and foist a false case against the appellant/accused. Further, the documentary evidence under Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant/accused. There is no reason for the police officials to get huge quantity of explosives, i.e., 30 gelatin sticks, 115 detonators, 20 bundles of fuse wire and about 8 kilograms of Gun Powder and foist a false case against the appellant/accused. Further, the documentary evidence under Ex.P.2, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant/accused. In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Court below, having appreciated the entire evidence on record, rightly found the appellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two (02) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three month. There is nothing to take a different view. There is no infirmity in the judgment under challenge. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/accused do not merit consideration. Though the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, is imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine, the Court below, having taken a lenient view, sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, which is just and adequate. There are no circumstances to vary the same. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment, dated 11.11.2009, passed in S.C.No.419 of 2008 by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.