Bombay High Court
Satish Uttamrao Thakare And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Morshi ... on 22 April, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1/5 APL-323.21.odt-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 323 OF 2021
APPLICANTS :- 1. Satish Uttamrao Thakare, Aged about 44
years, Occ- Business, R/o. Ambada, Tq.
Morshi, District Amravati.
2. Premnath Devanath Jogi, Aged about 50
years, Occ- Labour, R/o Balev, Tq. Badnor,
District Bhilwada, Rajasthan.
...VERSUS...
NON APPLICANTS/ :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police
COMPLAINANT Station Officer, Morshi, Tq. Morshi, District
Rural Amravati.
2. Anand Kawaduji Pidurkar, Aged about 40
years, Occ- Service, R/o Rural Amravati,
Anti-Terror Squad, Morshi, Amravati.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Suyash Agrawal, Advocate h/f Mr.S.V. Shirpurkar,
Advocate for the applicants.
Mr.S.P. Deshpande, A.P. P. for non applicant No.1.
None for non applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 22.04.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)
1. Heard.
KHUNTE
2/5 APL-323.21.odt-Judgment
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. By this application under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration of First
Information Report No.50 of 2020, dated 30/01/2020 registered with
non applicant No.1-Police Station and consequent charge-sheet bearing
Regular Criminal Case No.136 of 2020, pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Morshi for the offence punishable under section
4-b of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered against
the applicants with the accusations that on 29/01/2020, non applicant
No.2, who is working as Assistant Police Inspector, Anti-Terrorist Squad,
Amravati (Rural) while patrolling reached at Talni Fata and saw a
tractor bearing registration No. MTC-3711 was standing. When non
applicant No.2 went near the said tractor, the driver ran away from the
spot. The non applicant No.2 conducted search of the said tractor and
found that explosive i.e. 15 gelatin sticks of Super Power Company and
13 detonators were found in the said tractor. On enquiry, it was found
that applicant No.2 was the driver. The non applicant no. 1 after
conducting investigation, filed charge-sheet against the applicants for
the offence punishable under section 4-b of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908.
KHUNTE
3/5 APL-323.21.odt-Judgment
5. The applicants have therefore, challenged the registration
of the FIR and consequent charge-sheet by way of filing the present
application. This Court on 24/02/2019 issued notice to the non-
applicants. The non applicant No.1 in pursuance of the said notice,
filed reply stating that non applicant No.2 found explosive i.e. 15
gelatin sticks and 13 detonators in the tractor of the applicants. It is
stated that the Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses
including the owner of the said tractor. The statement of owner of the
tractor revealed that he engaged applicant No.1 as Shot Firer to do
work of blasting at the given site. The Investigating Officer in the
course of investigation obtained licence of applicant No.1 duly issued by
the Authority. It is also stated that in the investigation, it is revealed
that the owner of M/s. Saikrupa Enterprises, who is holding licence, had
engaged services of applicant No.1 as Shot Firer.
6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR
and material on record in the form of charge-sheet. The Advocate for
the applicants invited our attention to the order of this Court in the case
of Omprakash Bhagatwar Kumar and others v. The State of
Maharashtra, Criminal Application (APL) No.409 of 2016 , dated
27/02/2018. This Court in the said case quashed FIR where the fact
KHUNTE
4/5 APL-323.21.odt-Judgment
situation was the same as fact situation of the present case. This Court
allowed the application on the ground that the applicants were having
licence on the date of possession of explosive.
7. Having considered paragraph-7 of the reply filed by non
applicant No.1, wherein the Investigating Agency has admitted that
there was valid licence issued in favour of M/s. Saikrupa Enterprises
which had engaged services of applicant No.1 as Shot Firer, we are
satisfied that ingredient of offence under section 4-b of the Explosive
Substances Act are not fulfilled. The said Act punishes only those
persons, who unlawfully and maliciously are in possession of the
explosive substance. In view of undisputed fact that M/s. Saikrupa
Enterprises, who had engaged services of applicant No.1 as Shot Firer,
and was having valid license, it cannot be said that the applicants were
in unlawful possession of explosive substance. The applicants' get
support from judgment of this Court in Criminal Application (APL)
No.409 of 2016 wherein this Court in similar fact situation had quashed
the FIR against the applicants therein.
8. Hence, for the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that
the FIR and the charge-sheet against the applicants deserve to be
quashed and set aside.
KHUNTE
5/5 APL-323.21.odt-Judgment
9. We, therefore, pass following order:
i) First Information Report No.50 of 2020 registered with
non applicant No.1 and consequent charge-sheet bearing
Regular Criminal Case No.136 of 2020 pending before
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morshi for the offence
punishable under section 4-b of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908 against the applicants are quashed and set
aside.
10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (Z.A.HAQ, J)
KHUNTE
