M.Melnar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2021 Latest Caselaw 22103 Mad

                                                                              Crl. R.C.(MD)No.806 of 2021


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 10.11.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

                                           Crl. R.C.(MD)No.806 of 2021
                                                       and
                                           Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9483 of 2021

                 M.Melnar                                                        .. Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                 1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                   Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
                   Karungal Police Station,
                   Kanyakumari.

                 2.Chudalai Mani,
                   The Inspector of Police,
                   Nesamani Police Station,
                   Nagercoil.                                                       ..Respondents
                 Prayer : This Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 r/w. Section 401 of
                 Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the case pending in S.C.No.72 of
                 2018 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Eraniel and set aside
                 the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned.


                                        For Petitioner          : Mr.N.Dilipkumar

                                        For R1                  : Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi
                                                                  Government Advocate




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                 1/6
                                                                                  Crl. R.C.(MD)No.806 of 2021


                                                           ORDER

This Criminal Revision has been filed to call for the records

pertaining to the case pending in S.C.No.72 of 2018 on the file of the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Eraniel.

2.The case against the petitioner is that he sold ammonium nitrate to

the third accused in the case. A case against A1 to A3 was registered in Crime

No.242 of 2012. On the confession statement given by A3, the petitioner was

impleaded as A4. After the filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on

file as S.C.No.72 of 2018 on the file of the Special Court, Eraniel. The

petitioner has filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.94 of 2019, to discharge him from

the charges. That petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Against that order,

the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

3. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that F.I.R was

lodged only against three named accused. But, after the completion of

investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner for unlawful

possession of Explosive Substance and abetted such offence. Charge sheet was

laid against three accused. The only allegation against this petitioner is that the

Ammonium Nitrate seized by the police officials from the quarry site was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.806 of 2021

alleged to have been supplied by the petitioner. The trial Court has failed to

consider that the allegation in the final report did not disclose any cognizable

offence against the petitioner. Except the confession statement, there is no

material connecting the petitioner. There was no recovery, on the basis of the

confession and the confession of A3 is not relevant against the petitioner.

Ammonium Nitrate was notified as an Explosive only on 21.12.2012. But, the

occurrence took place on 03.05.2012 and no offence is made out against the

petitioner under the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioner was not

mentioned as an Accused in the F.I.R. The offence under the Explosive

Substances Act is to be investigated only by a Deputy Superintendent of

Police.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied upon a

judgment of this Court reported in 2018-SCC-Online-Madras-4969

(C.Arjune V. State), wherein, it is stated as follows:-

...(9) Since the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012 came into force only on 11.07.2012, therefore, earlier to commencement of these rules ie. on 09.04.2009 is Ammonium Nitrate was found in the possession of the petitioner, no licence thereof was required since it was clarified by the Government of India vide its clarification, dated 18 th March, 2009 wherein specifically it has been mentioned that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.806 of 2021

Ammonium Nitrate per se is not an explosive and does not require any licence under either Explosives Act, 1884 or Explosive Substances Act, 1908 at present” .......

11.Apart from the clarification given by the concerned department, the above judgments also make it clear that Ammonium Nitrate is not an explosive and the possession of the same will not amount to an offence.”

5.Another judgment of this Court reported in 2014-SCC-Online-

Madras-8100 (Anthony Gomez V. State) is cited by the petitioner, wherein, it

is stated as follows:-

“13.In the absence of any other material, except the confession statement of co-accused, the factual aspects as stated above, if are viewed in the light of necessary ingredients of section 5 of the Act, the same would undoubtedly lead to an inference that the allegations raised in the complaint do not attract any offence against the petitioner herein, who has nothing to do with the possession of the explosives in the shed in question, as such, he cannot be subjected to face the ordeal of trial. In the event of the criminal proceedings being allowed to go on, it amounts to an abuse of process of law and the same would greatly prejudice the petitioner and the F.I.R registered against the petitioner is hence liable to be quashed.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.806 of 2021

6. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that a case under

Sections 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act was registered against the

petitioner. On the confession of A3, the petitioner was impleaded as A4. The

case is pending from the year 2018. Only after the completion of the trial, the

case against the petitioner can be decided and prayed the petition to be

dismissed.

7.The case is pending for the past 9 years. The points raised by the

petitioner in this case can be raised by the petitioner before the trial Court.

Discharging the petitioner before the trial is not proper.

8.In view of the same, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case, in S.C.No.72 of 2018, within

a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

10.11.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Ls

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.806 of 2021

R.THARANI, J.

Ls

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To

1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Eraniel.

2.The Inspector of Police, Karungal Police Station, Kanyakumari.

3.Chudalai Mani, The Inspector of Police, Nesamani Police Station, Nagercoil.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.806 of 2021

10.11.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis