Allowed

Ramkumar Chandravanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Mar 2024CRA/98/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for illegal possession of ammonium nitrate. Holding that ammonium nitrate was not an explosive requiring licence before the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 took effect on 11.07.2012, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence dated 13.01.2011 set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges.

Ramkumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 98 of 2011

¶5

Ramkumar Chandravanshi Aged About 44 Years S/o Kripal Chandravanshi, R/o Village Baardi, P.S.-Pipariya, Distt.-Kawardha, C.G.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, through: the Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A.

¶10

_______________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

15.03.2024

¶13

The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2011 passed in Session Trial No. 117/2009 by which the learned Session Judge, Durg, District Durg, (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :-

¶14

Conviction	Sentence and In Default of Payment of Fine
u/s 05 of Explosive Substance	R.I. for three Years with fine amount of Rs. 500/- in default of which additional S.I. for two months
u/s 286of Indian Penal Code	S.I. for two months with fine amount of Rs. 200/- in default of which additional S.I. for 15 days

¶15

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.05.2009, on the basis of a

¶16

¶17

secrete information received, S.I. of Police Station Dhamdha, and other police staff had reached at bus stand Dhamdha and found that one man is carrying a jute bag and on enquiry and search, they found 8 polythene pouch in which about 22 pieces of stick of explosive substance.

¶18

As per the evidence given by the Researcher namely S.L. Sahu before the Trial Court, he seized 8 packets of substance (Article A-1 to H-1 as Exhibit-01) and sent in a sealed condition to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. He has stated in his evidence that the investigation report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur is Exhibit 15, wherein it is clearly stated that the chemical test of Nitroglycerin of the substance from Ex. A-1 to Ex. H-1 was found to be positive. It has been opined that explosive substance Nitroglycerin and Ammonium Nitrate were present in the substances from Ex.A-1 to H-1 . Therefore the prosecution has been successful in establishing that the substance seized in this case is an explosive substance.

¶19

After completion of the investigation, a final report has been prepared for offences defined under Section 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 286 of I.P.C. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the final report/charge-sheet submitted by the Investigation Authority, had framed charges under Section 4(B), in alternate Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act and 286 of IPC. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court had came to conclusion that appellant has committed an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 286 of IPC for illegal possession and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph

¶20

¶21

of this order.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences without just and proper material available against the appellant in the record.

¶23

Further learned counsel for the appellant submits that the substance, namely, Ammonium Nitrate was not the explosive substance on 05.05.2009 as defined under the Explosive Substance Act. In the gazette notification of Government of Indian dated 11.07.2012 Ammonium Nitrate Rules 2012 were published and enforced from the date of its publication. Therefore, the charges under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act and 286 of IPC, could not be framed against the appellant on the ground that a jute bag of ammonium nitrate was seized in the year 2009. He has placed his reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Sharad Kumar Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine MP 8786.

¶24

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant and submits that the learned Trial Court has considered the evidence on record and passed appropriate order, which warrants no interference.

¶25

The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard and entire record has been perused.

¶26

Undisputedly, the Rules namely Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 came into force from the date of its publication which is 11th July, 2012. The Gazette

¶27

¶28

Notification of Government India is dated 11.07.2012 by which rules have been published. Rule 3 which pertains to Ammonium Nitrate as an explosive substance would be deemed as explosive substance with effect from 11.07.2012 and not earlier to it. For ready reference, the Rule 1(2), Rule 3 and Rule 6(2)(b) of the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 which state as under:-

¶29

Rule1(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette

¶30

Rule 3. Scope of applicability of Rules and exemptions; (1) These rules are applicable all over India for regulating the manufacturing, conversion, import, export, stevedoring, bagging, transport, and possession for sale or use of the Ammonium Nitrate. (2) Nothing in these rules shall apply to the possession, use, transport or import or export of Ammonium Nitrate by-

¶31

(a) any of the Armed Forces of the Union and Ordnance Factories or other establishments of such Forces for own use in accordance with the rules or regulations made by the Central Government;

¶32

(b) the Indian Railways and its authorized carriers while acting as carrier;

¶33

(c) the Port authority

¶34

(d) any person employed under the Central Government or State Government in exercise of any power under the Act or these rules.

¶35

(3) Nothing in these Rules shall apply to the possession and use of ammonium nitrate of quantity not exceeding five kilograms by the established laboratories, educational institutions, medical institutions, hospitals and health clinics for scientific and educational purpose:

¶36

¶37

Rule 6(2)(b) No Ammonium Nitrate shall be converted at any place except at converter’s premises duly licensed.

¶38

10.As per clarification issued by the Government of India on 18^th March, 2009, Ammonium Nitrate per se is not an explosive and does not require any licence under either Explosive Act, 1884 or Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

¶39

11.Since, the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 came into force only on 11.07.2012, therefore, earlier to commencement of these rules i.e. on 05.05.2009 if Ammonium Nitrate was found in the possession of the petitioner, no license thereof was required since it was clarified by the Government of India vide its clarification dated 18.03.2009 wherein specifically it has been mentioned that Ammonium Nitrate per se is not an explosive and does not require any license under either explosives Act, 1884 or Explosive Substances Act, 1908 at present.

¶40

12.It is pertinent to mention here that the Trial Court has observed in paragraph No. 12 of the impugned Judgment that after accepting of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution, no such fact has emerged from which, it can be determined that the accused had possessed the said explosive substance in his possession or under his control unlawfully and intentionally. To constitute the offence of Section 4(B) Explosive Substance Act, both the elements of possession unlawfully and maliciously must be present and proved. On the part of the prosecution, illegal occupation has been proved, but malicious occupation has not been proved. Therefore, an offence under Section 4 (B) of the Explosive

¶41

¶42

Substance Act is not made against the accused.

¶43

13.Hence, this Court is of the view that because on 05.05.2009, no licence was required by the appellant to carry on the trade of Ammonium Nitrate, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted and charged under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 286 of IPC.

¶44

14.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2011 in Sessions Trial No.117/2009 is hereby set aside. Appellant stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in force for six months in view of Section 437 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶45

15.The trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the Trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶46

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶47

Jyoti

Ramkumar Chandravanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkumar Chandravanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandlal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ghanshyam Motilal Gupta

Vishnu Singh Rathia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Agrawal Vs Raja Ram Tripathi and Anr.

Smt. Padma Baghel, Vs Bodku Podyami

Suresh Kumar Mahapatra Vs Dinesh Agrawal