Court Upholds Stringent Provisions of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Against Licensed Dealers for Illicit Sales
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to the proprietors of M/s. Chetan Enterprises, Mantagoud Biradar, and others, accused of facilitating the illegal sale of explosives. This decision, rendered by a division bench comprising Justices Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar, underscores the stringent application of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The case originated when a lorry loaded with a substantial cache of explosives, including 10,500 non-electric detonators and 89,600 gelatin sticks, was intercepted by police in Thirurangadi. The explosives were allegedly concealed beneath sacks of onions to obscure their presence, leading to suspicions of unlawful activities. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) later took over the investigation, suspecting a larger conspiracy.
The appellants, engaged in the business of explosives under a valid license, argued that their possession of the explosives was lawful and the alleged offences were bailable under the Explosives Act, 1884. They contended that they had no unlawful object in possession or control of the explosives, as defined under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
However, the court, after examining the case diary and the materials collected by the investigating agency, determined that the possession and sale of explosives to unlicensed individuals for unauthorized quarrying operations constituted an "unlawful object" under Section 5 of the Act. The judgment emphasized that Section 5 is an independent provision aimed at penalizing possession or control of explosives under suspicious circumstances, irrespective of subsequent actions.
The court also noted the appellants' involvement in similar criminal cases and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation. The decision reflects the court's stance that the offence under Section 5 is complete upon the possession or control of explosives for an unlawful purpose, and subsequent actions do not mitigate the offence.
The judgment highlights the legal obligations of licensed dealers to ensure explosives are not sold to unlicensed entities, reinforcing the legislative intent to prevent misuse and ensure public safety. The court's decision is seen as a deterrent against the illegal trade of explosives, aligning with national security interests.
The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations are limited to the pre-arrest bail consideration and do not prejudge the outcome of the trial.
Bottom Line:
Pre-arrest bail under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Denied in cases involving possession or control of explosives for unlawful purposes, even if prior possession or control is established - Licensed explosive dealers selling to unlicensed persons for unauthorized use may attract Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Sections 4, 5, and 6
Mantagoud Biradar v. Union of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2955563
