Dismissed

S.Neelam Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Mar 2017CRLP/1832/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a bail petition filed by the petitioner under the Cr.P.C. The court rejected the argument that an agreement between transferors justified the unauthorized possession of explosives, ruling that the license had not been formally transferred by authorities, constituting a prima facie violation of the Explosive Substances Act.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for bail is dismissed; the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail at this stage.

S.Neelam Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1832 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.34 of 2017 on the file of Pebbair Police Station, Wanaparthy District for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short ‘Act’).

¶5

The brief facts of the case the petitioner who is the Managing Partner of M/s Nellam Builders & Developers obtained mining license from the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Mahabubnagar vide proceedings No.944/QL/2016 dated 16.04.2016 over an extent of 8-00 Hectares in Sy.No.484 of Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal, Mahabubnagar District for a period of fifteen years w.e.f 16.04.2016 to 15.04.2031. Further, vide proceedings No.E/SC/AP/22/905 (E40217) dated 06.12.2007 the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives Hyderabad authorized the petitioner to possess and use explosive substances in mining operations, subject to certain limitations which will be in force till 31.03.2010. Thus, the petitioner, based on the authorization given by Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives Hyderabad, secured 280 Jilatin Sticks from Ideal Power Go Company, 36 boosters, 162 detonators, 3 meggar box batteries, 180 kgs (approx) Ammonium Nitrate, 3 Idial Cord Fuse. On receipt of information, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pebbair Police Station along with his team and

¶6

MSM,J Crl.P.No.1832 of 2017

¶7

¶8

found the above mentioned explosive substances and seized them under the cover of panchanama in the presence of two independent mediators, as the petitioner has not taken any precautionary measures which are endangering the human life and registered Crime No.34 of 2017 against the petitioner.

¶9

Curiously, explosive license was granted to the petitioner in License Form LE-3 vide proceedings No.E/SC/AP/22/905 (E40217) dated 06.12.2007 by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives Hyderabad to possess and use explosives in the licensed premises at Sy.No.484/1, Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal, Mahabubnagar District with validity upto 31.03.2020. The license further provided the petitioner to possess 100 kgs slurry explosives, 2500 electric detonators, 1500 ordinary detonators, 1500 mtrs safety fuses and 1500 mtrs detonating fuses. Thus, the petitioner possessed authorization/license issued by the competent authority and he is entitled to possess and use the explosive substances in the magazine in Sy.No.484/1, Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal. But, the explosive substances were seized from Sy.Nos.481/U, 481/RU in the limits of Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a lessee of mining land of an extent of 14-00 hectares in Sy.No.484 of Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal vide proceedings dated 31.03.2016, whereas, Sri K. Pulla Reddy is a lessee of 3-00 hectares of land in Sy.No.484/1 of Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal, running a stone crusher thereon. But, the

¶11

MSM,J Crl.P.No.1832 of 2017

¶12

¶13

petitioner allegedly obtained an agreement Sri K. Pulla Reddy for transfer of stone crusher in Sy.No.484 along with license vide proceedings No.E/SC/AP/22/905 (E40217) which will be in force till 30.03.2010. In view of the said agreement, the license possessed by Sri K. Pulla Reddy for possessing and using explosives under Explosive Substances Act is deemed to have been transferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the agreement dated 28.03.2016 and proceedings bearing Lr.No.1321/MDR/MBNR/2016 dated 30.04.2016 issued by Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad, permitting the petitioner to take up mining operations in Sy.Nos.481/U, 481/P, 572/A, 572/E & 482/A of Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Thus, taking advantage of the agreement, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in view of Rule 108 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, a licence granted under the Explosive Substances Act is transferable and on account of agreement between Sri K. Pulla Reddy and the petitioner, the license was also transferred n the name of the petitioner and thereby, stocking of explosive substances is not an offence.

¶14

It is relevant to extract Rule 108 of The Explosives Rules, 2008, which reads as follows:

¶15

“108. Transfer of licence.—

¶16

(1) A licence granted under these rules may be transferred by the authority empowered to grant the licence.

¶17

(2) An applicant who desires to get the licence transferred in his favour shall submit to the licensing authority—

¶18

(a) an application in form appropriate for grant of the licence ;

¶19

(b) specimen signature of the applicant or his authorised person;

¶20

(c) a letter from the existing licensee signed by the authorised person requesting the transfer of licence in

¶21

MSM,J Crl.P.No.1832 of 2017

¶22

¶23

favour of the applicant or a succession certificate from a competent court in case of death of a licensee being an individual;

¶24

(d) original licence issued to the existing licensee;

¶25

(e) copies of supporting documents regarding transfer of rights of the premises in favour of the applicant;

¶26

(f) requisite scrutiny fee and transfer fee;

¶27

(g) copies of all approved drawings in the name of the applicant;

¶28

(h) status of the applicant whether individual, proprietary firm, partnership firm, company, association or society or otherwise — documentary evidence along with names, addresses of the proprietor or partners or directors or members as the case may be, and photographs of the occupier, to be submitted;

¶29

(i) a no objection certificate from the District Magistrate for transfer of the licence in favour of the applicant : Provided that no objection certificate shall not be necessary if the applicant holds a licence for which a no objection certificate has already been granted.

¶30

In the present case, Sri K. Pulla Reddy permitted the petitioner to use his license bearing No.E/SC/TG/22/905/ (E40217). Undoubtedly, the license can be transferred by the authorities concerned, subject to compliance of the requirements under Rule 108 of the Rules. But here, the petitioner did not get the license transferred by the competent authorities, which was originally issued in favour of Sri K. Pulla Reddy. Until the license is transferred in favour of the petitioner by competent authority, he is not entitled to possess and use the explosives in Sy.Nos.481/U, 481/P, 572/A, 572/E & 482/A of Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Therefore, it is a prima facie contravention of Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act and thereby, I find prima facie material against the petitioner to conclude that he violated the license conditions and possessed explosive substances in Sy.No.484/1, Tatipamula Village, Pebbair Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, and thereby, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on pre-arrest bail at this stage. Therefore, I find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Consequently, the

¶31

MSM,J Crl.P.No.1832 of 2017

¶32

¶33

criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶35

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶36

this Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶37

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶38

Dated: 16.03.2017

¶39

S.Neelam Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Neelam Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kola Sathibabu Vs The State of A.P

Daravath Mangilala Vs The State of Telangana

Thathineni Rajesh Vs The State of A.P

M.M.Ashraf Ali, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Badaris Vs The State of A.P

Manchikatla Satyanarayana Vs The State of A.P.