JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This acquittal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 27.4.2010 by which the learned Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker in Sessions Case No.89/2009, acquitted the respondent herein from the charges under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1908') holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the aforesaid offences beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Mr.Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State, would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has committed grave legal error in acquitting the respondent herein by recording a finding which is perverse to record. He would further submit that finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence is a perverse finding and contrary to material available on record and as such, it is liable to be setaside. 3. None present for the respondent though served. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant / State, considered his submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 24.11.2008 at village Kurrubhat in two rooms of crusher plant owned by Madan Mohan Singh @ Pappu Singh the appellant herein has kept safety fuse wire length 6 mtr. x 25 points, 7 kg. of explosive substance in Uriya bag and 7 pieces of detonator without any license and without authority of law and thereby committed the offence. 6. Learned Sessions Judge after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent herein from the aforesaid offences holding that the said offences have not been proved. 7. The respondent was charged for offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1908 from whom he has been acquitted. Section 4(b) of the Act of 1908 states as under: “4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property. Any person who unlawfully and maliciously (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property, or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in India.” 8. In order to bring home the offence under Section 4(b) of the Act of 1908, the prosecution has to prove that the substance in question was explosive substance and the accused was in his possession or under his control any explosive substance with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in India. 9. Explosive substance has been defined in Section 2 of the Act of 1908. The definition states as under: “2(a). In this Act the expression “explosive substance” shall be deemed to include any materials for making any explosive substance; also any apparatus, machine, implement or material used, or intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion in or with any explosive substance; also any part of any such apparatus, machine or implement.” 10. Thus, Section 2 of the Act of 1908 has a deeming provision which states that explosive substance would include any material for making any explosive substance. 11. “Explosive substance” has a broader and more comprehensive meaning that the term 'explosive'. 'Explosive substance' includes 'explosive'. The term 'explosive' has not been defined in the Act. The dictionary meaning of the word 'explosive' is 'tending to expand suddenly with load noise'; 'tending to cause explosion' (THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY). In the Indian Explosive Act, 1884, the term 'explosive' has been defined as follows: 4. In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, (1) “explosive” (a) means gunpowder, nitroglycerine, dynamite, guncotton, blasting powders, fulminate of mercury or of other metals, coloured fires and every other substance, whether similar to those above mentioned or not, used or manufactured with a view to produce a practical effect by explosion, or a pyrotechnic effect; and (b) includes fogsignals; fuses, rockets, percussion caps, detonators, cartridge, ammunition of all descriptions, and every adaptation or preparation of an explosive as above defined;. 12. As per seizure memo (Ex.P1), safety fuse wire length 6 mtr. x 25 points, 7 kg. of explosive substance and 7 pieces of detonator have been recovered from possession of the respondent herein and it was sent for FSL. 12. As per seizure memo (Ex.P1), safety fuse wire length 6 mtr. x 25 points, 7 kg. of explosive substance and 7 pieces of detonator have been recovered from possession of the respondent herein and it was sent for FSL. The Superintendent of Police, North Bastar Kanker by letter dated 17.12.2008 sent safety fuse wire and sample of 100 gram explosive substance to find out whether article is explosive and it can be used for blast, but by letter dated 12.12.2008 (not exhibited), some documents were sought by the Director, FSL, Tikrapara, Raipur, but that was not sent and ultimately, the judgment came to be passed. As such, for want of FSL report regarding seized articles, no FSL report has been brought on record and it could not be established by the prosecution that seized substance was explosive substance within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act of 1908, which is sine qua non for punishment for offence under Section 2(a) of the Act of 1908. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the respondent herein from charge under Section 4 of the Act of 1908. 13. The next question for consideration would be, whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the respondent herein from charge under Section 5 of the Act of 1908. 14. Section 5 of the Act of 1908 provides as under: “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, be 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.” 15. In order to bring home the offence under Section 5 of the Act of 1908, the prosecution has to prove: (i) that the substance in question is explosive substance; (ii) that the accused makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive; and (iii) that he does so under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not doing so far a lawful object. 16. The burden of proof of these ingredients is on the prosecution. The moment the prosecution discharges that burden, it shifts to the accused to show that he was making or possessing the explosive substance for a lawful object, if he takes that plea. (See paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and others v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 443 ). 17. It has already been held that the prosecution was required to prove that the substance in question was explosive substance and further possession of the accused 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 lawful object. 18. Since the substance seized from the possession of the respondent has not been proved to be explosive substance, the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely justified in acquitting the respondent herein from charges under Section 5 of the Act of 1908 as first ingredient that the substance in question was explosive substance has not been established. We do not find any merit in this acquittal appeal. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.