LOPCHAND NARUJI JAT AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 10-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

LOPCHAND NARUJI JA T AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT, PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Criminal trial: 
Conviction based on evidence of investigating officer-held, sustainable. 
. Explosives Act, 1884: 
Sec. 9-B(i)(b)-Prior sanction of prosecution-Held, Not necessary. 
Sec. 4(d)-Explosives Rules, 1983-Class 2 and Class 6-
Schedule-l-Ammunition dynamites-Held, these are explosives. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The appellants were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under 
Sections 9-B(i)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884, and Section 5 of TADA 
1985, for possession of 180 detonators (aluminium dynamites with 
ammonium tubes and electrical red wires). The trial court convicted the 
appellants under Section 9-B(i)(b) of the Act of 1884 and sentenced him 
E 
to undergo imprisonment for one year and a 
fine of 
Rs. 1000 with default stipulation, but acquitted them of the charges 
·under Section 5 of the TADA, 1985. High Court upheld the judgment of 
the Sessions Court. 
Before this Court the appellant contended that without prior 
F 
sanction of prosecution by the Central Government the proceedings 
were illegal; that the articles recovered cannot be said to be explosives 
and the appellants could not have been convicted; that there was no 
independent evidence and conviction based on the evidence of 
investigating officer was not sustainable; and that since the appellants 
had faced trial for about 10 years they should not have been convicted 
with punishment of custodial sentence. 
The Respondents contended that no sanction was necessary under 
G 
the Explosives Act of 1884; that the report of the Controller of Explosives 
indicates the substance was an explosive of Class 2 and Class 6 under H 
329 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Schedule I to Explosives Rules 1983 and that the conviction and sentence 
are well merited. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Prior sanction for prosecuting is not provided under the 
Explosive Act, 1884 and therf'fore it is not required. [331-H) 
2. The evidence clearly shows that the substances recovered were 
explosives of Class 2 and Class 6 of Schedule-I. (332-B) 
3. When the investigating officer was found to be trustful and in 
spite of incisive cross-examination, nothing material has been brou~ht 
to discredit his evidence, the Trial Court was justified in recording 
conviction on his evidence alone. (333-E) 
4. The custodial sentence and fine imposed do not warrant any 
reduction. [333-G) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 580 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.98 of the Gujarat High Court 
in Cr!. A. No. 998 of 1998. 
'{imal Chandra and S. Dave for the Appellants. 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and Ms. Sadhna Sandhu for Mrs. H. Wahi 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Appellants call in question legality of the 
judgment ,rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court 
upholding their conviction for offence punishable under Section 9-B(i)(b) of 
the Explosives Act, 1884 (in short the 'Act'). The Trial Court sentenced each 
of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of 
Rs.1,000 with default stipulation. 
In a nutshell the background facts are as follows: 
H 
On 20.4.1988, the appellants came to Surat from Indore and were 
LOPCHANDNARUJIJATv. STATE[PASAYAT,J.] 
331 
intercepted by the police at the bus stand. 
They were found to be in 
possession of 180 detonators. A criminal case no.4 of 1990 was registered 
against the appellants-accused. They were charge-sheeted for the offence 
punishable under Sections 9-B(i)(b) of the Act and Section 5 of the Terrorists 
& Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (in short the 'TADA'). By 
judgment and order dated 12.10.1998 of the Trial Court, the accused were 
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA. However, 
they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 9-B(i)(b) of 
the Act and were sentenced as aforesaid. 
In the appeal before the High Court stand of the appellants was that 
without prior sanction of the Central Government for prosecution the 
proceedings were illegal. It was also submitted that articles recovered from 
the appellants cannot be said to be explosives and, therefore, also the 
appellants could not have been convicted. As there was no independent 
evidence and only the evidence of the investi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.