Dismissed¶53

Deepak Kumar v. State of M.P.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2025CRR/708/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC criminal revision dismissed 11.07.2025 (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.); applicants sought discharge from charges framed 05/04/1997 under S.5 Explosive Substances Act 1908 and S.9B Explosives Act 1884 after seizure of 25 kg special gelatine and 25 detonators without licence; HC will not interfere at charge-framing stage; no mini trial while dealing with discharge petition; charges upheld.

What did the court decide?

Considering the entire material available on record and the seriousness of offences relating to explosives, the trial Court rightly framed the charge against the petitioners (the applicants) for contravening the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and the Explosives Act; prima facie the petitioners contravened the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act. ¶44

Deepak Kumar Vs State of M.P. — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants are entitled to be discharged and the impugned order framing charges under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 should be set aside. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Applying the principle stated to have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, that while dealing with a discharge petition the Court has no jurisdiction to look into the documents and conduct a mini trial either as a trial Court or as an appellate Court, the Court held the applicants failed to make out a case for discharge.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

¶44

Key takeaways

No reasons are required to be recorded when charges are framed against the accused and the High Court ought to be loathe to interfere at the stage of framing of charges; at the initial stage the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged, and where there is a strong suspicion giving ground to presume the accused has committed an offence, it is not open to the court to say there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.ratio¶47
The petitioners (applicants) failed to make out the case for discharge and this Court found no merit in the instant revision.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRR No. 708 of 1997, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Bibhu Datta Guru, J., order dated 11.07.2025) by two applicants seeking setting aside of the trial Court's order dated 05/04/1997 and their discharge from charges under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, arising from seizure of 25 k.g. of explosive special Gelatines and 25 electric detonators from their godown on secret information, it being alleged they possessed no licence. Held: considering the seriousness of offences relating to explosives, the trial Court rightly framed the charges and prima facie the applicants contravened the Explosive Substances Act; no reasons are required at the charge-framing stage and the High Court ought to be loathe to interfere there, a strong suspicion furnishing sufficient ground to proceed; in dealing with a discharge petition the Court has no jurisdiction to conduct a mini trial. The applicants failed to make out a case for discharge; the Criminal Revision was dismissed.

CRR No.708 of 1997

2025:CGHC:32347

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY

NAFR

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.15 10:23:23 +0530

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

CRR No. 708 of 1997

¶9

1 - Deepak Kumar S/o Kapilram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Sangli, Tehsil- Gurur, District Durg, (M.P. Now Chhattisgarh. )

¶10

2 - Ramkhilawan Gajpal S/o Saligram Gajpal Aged About 34 Years R/o Borigarka, Tehsil Durg, District Durg, M.P. Now Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Applicants

¶12

versus

¶13

State Of M.P. Through S.H.O. Amanaka, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

For Applicants : None For Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶16

11.07.2025

¶17

The present revision is fled by the applicants for setting aside the i impugned order and the applicants be discharged from the ofence i.e. Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act,1908 and f Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884

¶18

Facts of the case, in brief, is that on secret information, a raid was conducted in the godown of the applicants and seized 25 k.g. of explosive special Gelatines and 25 electric detonators. It was alleged that the applicant did not possess licensee for possessing

¶19

¶20

such explosives. On these facts, charges were framed against both these applicants under Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act and under Section 9 of the Explosives Act.

¶21

The learned trial Court on appreciation and due consideration of material available on record/charge-sheet, framed the charges against the applicants vide order dated 05/04/1997 for the ofence i.e. Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act,1908 and f Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884. Hence, this revision.

¶22

Learned counsel for State/respondent supports the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶24

It would be relevant to quote the provisions of Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act,1908 and Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, which read thus :

¶25

Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908

¶26

5. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances

¶27

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,

¶28

(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;

¶29

(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.

¶30

Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884

¶31

¶32

9B. Punishment for certain of f ences.-- (1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules--

¶33

(a) manufactures, imports or exports any explosive shall he punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;

¶34

(b) possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both; and

¶35

¶36

(2) Whoever in contravention of a notification issued under section 6 manufactures, possesses or imports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both; and in the case of importation by water, the owner and master of the vessel or in the ease of importation by air, the owner, and the master of the aircraft, in which the explosive is imported shall, in the absence of reasonable excuse, each be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

¶37

(3) Whoever,--

¶38

(a) manufactures, sells, transports, imports, exports or possesses any explosive in contravention of the provisions of clause (a) of section 6A; or

¶39

(b) sells, delivers or despatches any explosive in contravention of the provisions of clause (b) of that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both; or

¶40

¶41

(i) with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or

¶42

(ii) if the accident is attended by loss of human life, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both.]

¶43

Having considered the entire material available on record and

¶44

particularly considering the seriousness of the offences relating to explosives, in my opinion the trial court rightly framed the charge against the petitioners for contravening the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and the Explosives Act. It is thus clear that prima facie the petitioners contravened the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶45

It is the trite law that n o reasons are required to be recorded

¶46

¶47

when the charges are framed against the accused and the High Court to be loathe in interfering at the stage of framing the charges against the accused. It is worthwhile to mention here that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not be meticulously judged. Even it is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. If there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶48

The Supreme Court in ‘n’ number of cases reminded the High Court of their statutory obligation to not interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.

¶49

It is well settled principle that the material to sustain conviction is different from the framing of the charges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has laid the

¶50

¶51

principle that while dealing the discharge petition, the Court has no jurisdiction to look into the documents and conduct a mini trial either as a trial Court or as a appellate Court against the conviction to deal the discharge petition.

¶52

By applying the above principle, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioners failed to make out the case for discharge. In this said circumstances,this Court finds no merit in the instant revision.

¶53

In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.

¶54

SD/-

¶55

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶56

Gowri/ Amardeep

Deepak Kumar v. State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar v. State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukchund Ram Rajwade Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Pratik Kumar Jaisawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Kumar Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hunnaid Hussain Vs State of M.P.

Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Vs Sunil Kumar Sahu

Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Vs Ghasi Ram Sahoo