Madras High Court
Navaneetha Krishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 April, 2023
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
1.Navaneetha Krishnan
2.Edward Jayakumar
3.Elangainathan @ Nathan @ Rajan
@ Sindu @ Ilango @ Sivalingam
... Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
'Q' Branch CID Police Station,
Madurai.
In Crime No.1 of 2008. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set
aside the conviction and Judgment passed by the IV Additional
District and Sessions Court, Madurai in S.C.No.334 of 2010, dated
28.04.2016.
For A – 1 : Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh
For A – 2 : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment
and conviction passed in S.C.No.334 of 2010 on the file of the IV
Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, dated 28.04.2016.
2.The case of the prosecution is that all the accused,
hailing from Sri Lanka, wanted to procure materials with the intent
to prepare explosive substances for the purpose of use by the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) Organization. For this
common conspiracy, the second accused had purchased chemicals
and alloys at the shop of P.W.15 in Bangalore. At the time of
purchase, Accused No.2 had given his college identity card and
driving license and sent the chemical materials through TVS Lorry
booking office at Bangalore, addressed to the addressee at Madurai.
The consignment copy was received by Accused Nos.1 and 3 and
the materials were transported through P.W.9's Van and unloaded at
P.W.6 Pandian's house at Samathuvapuram, Sakkimangalam in
Madurai District. Accused No.3 is the uncle of P.W.6. On information,
on the next day, the contraband was seized by the Police, witnessed
by P.W.5. Accused No.1 was arrested for being in possession of
chemical materials to prepare explosives without any good and bona
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
fide reason for possession of explosive substances. On the basis of
the confession of Accused No.1, subsequently, Accused No.2 was
arrested and incriminating materials were seized from him.
Subsequently, Accused No.3 was also arrested. The chemical
materials were sent for examination and P.W.20 analyzed the same
and had given a report opining that the content of the seized
materials comes under the purview of the Explosive Substances as
contemplated under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The
accused denied the charges, and the relevant witnesses proved the
culpability of the offence committed by the accused.
3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.28 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.26 and also marked
material objects M.O.1 to M.O.10 and on the side of the respondent,
no one was examined and marked Ex.D.1.
4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable
under Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and
sentenced them to undergo three years Imprisonment each and
also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo
one month Simple Imprisonment each and also convicted them for
the offence under Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
r/w 120(b) of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo three years
Imprisonment each and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and
in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment each.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal.
5.The learned counsels appearing for appellants 1 and 2
would submit that as per the opinion of P.W.20/the scientific expert
that M.O.10 Diphenylamine is not a prohibited material to sell. The
material objects M.O.7 to M.O.10 are not explosives under the
Explosive Substances Act. In fact, those objects were kept in the
police station from 08.04.2008 even till today. The police station is
situated in a residential area. That apart, one of the cans carrying
Acetone got damaged at the bottom while stored in the police
station, to which all the liquid was drained, and it did not cause any
hindrance to anybody. Therefore, the charge itself is baseless, and
the appellants are liable to be acquitted. The shop owner was
examined as P.W.15 by the prosecution. He categorically deposed
that the material objects M.O.7 to M.O.10 are salable to the general
public. Therefore, to carry and sell the same, there is no need to get
any licence under the Explosive Substances Act. Initially, the case
was registered only under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and not under the Explosive Substances Act and no offence is
made out under the Explosive Substances Act. Therefore, the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
Court ought not to have convicted the appellants and they are liable
to be acquitted.
6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent would submit that the appellants were
charged for the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and also under
Section 120(B) of I.P.C. The chemicals sent for examination are
used for the explosive substances, and they could be prepared by
individual chemicals and a combination of multi chemicals. Another
material objection was glycerin, which was an explosive under the
Explosive Act in Schedule III. These chemicals are explosive
substances as per Section 2(a) of the Explosive Substances Act and
it shall be deemed to include any materials making any explosive
substance only any apparatus, machine or implement or material
used or intended to be used are adapted in or with any explosive
substances also any part of such apparatus, machine or implement.
M.O.7 to M.O.10 are not individual explosives, but the combination
of these chemicals would become explosive substances. Though
those materials are individually not dangerous, when combined,
they would become explosive substances. Therefore, the
prosecution proved its case beyond any doubt, and it does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
8.There are totally three accused, in which the
appellants are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 3. Admittedly, they
are hailing from Srilanka. They wanted to procure materials with the
intent to prepare explosive substances for the purpose of being
used by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) organization. All
the accused conspired together, and the second appellant had
purchased chemicals and alloy from the shop owned by P.W.15
situated in Bangalore. The second appellant while purchasing the
chemical materials produced his college identity card and driving
license. After purchasing the chemical materials, they were
transported to Madurai by TVS Lorry booking office. The
consignment copy was received by appellants 1 and 3. On secret
information, the contraband was seized by the respondent and
arrested the first appellant while he was in possession of materials
to procure explosive substances. On the strength of the confession
statement made by the first appellant, the second appellant was
arrested and incriminating materials were seized from him.
Subsequently, the third appellant was also arrested and remanded
to judicial custody. The materials were sent for expert opinion. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
Assistant Examiner of the Forensic Sciences Department opined that
the content of seized materials comes under the purview of
explosive substances as contemplated under the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908.
9.As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent that M.O.7 to M.10 are not
individually explosives substances, but their combination would
become explosive substances. It is clarified by P.W.20, who had
analyzed M.O.7 to M.O.10 and opined that the combination of the
chemicals is coming under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Admittedly, the second appellant had purchased M.O.7 to M.O.10
from the shop owner owned by P.W.15. P.W.15 also categorically
deposed that the substances were purchased by the second
appellant and booked from Bangalore to Madurai. Thereafter, the
first appellant and third appellant collected the same, and they were
found in possession of the same. Therefore, the prosecution
categorically proved its case and the trial Court rightly convicted the
appellants for the offence under Section 5(a) of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and also under Section 6 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 r/w 120(b) of I.P.C. Hence, it does not
warrant any interference by this Court. However, the learned
counsels appearing for appellants 1 and 2 would submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
appellants were in judicial custody, and also they were put in a
Special camp. Therefore, they prayed for reducing the sentence to
the period which was already undergone by the appellants. Though
the appellants are not entitled to consider the period spent in the
Special camp as judicial custody, considering the period of
incarceration by the appellants in the prison, this Court is inclined to
reduce the sentence to the period which was already undergone by
the appellants.
10.In view of the above, the conviction imposed as
against the appellants by the trial Court for the offence under
Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and also under
Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w 120(b) of I.P.C
is hereby confirmed. Insofar as the sentence imposed by the trial
Court is hereby modified to the period which was already undergone
by the appellants. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
06.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
To
1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Court,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
'Q' Branch CID Police Station,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
CRL.A.(MD).No.174 of 2016
06.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
