LexMOHAMMAD USMAN MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN MANIYAR & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
.G
H
68
MOHAMMAD USMAN MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN
MANIYAR & ANR.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
March 3, 1981
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL !SLAM JJ.)
Explosive Substances Act, sections 2 and 5-Whether potassium cyanide,
mixture of potassium cyanide and sulphur, detonators etc. etc., are 'explosive
substances' wtihin the definition of the expression-Whether such recovery in large
quantities amounts to "conscious possession" within the meaning of section 5-
Presumption of knowledge that a particular substance is an explosive substance,
when can be made.
Government of India, Ministry of Works & Housing and Urban Development
Notification No. 3/12/65-PII(IX) dated /st April, 1966, requiring a licence to make
or possess the expfossive substances-Possession without such a· licence, of the
explossive substances is unauthorised.
Penal Code, section 120B-Criminal conspiracy,--Nature of proof.
F.akhruddin, the owner of the shop, known as M. F. Maniyar & Sons,
Sholapur, along with his three sons, was tried for offences under section J20B of
the Penal Code, section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, section 3 read with
section 25 of the Arms Act and section 6(J){a) of the Poisons Act. All the four
were convicted· and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Sholapur, to sentences of
different durations under these Acts and also to fine.
The substantive sentences
were directed to run concurrently. The appeals before the High Court having
failed the appellants have come in appeal by special leave to this Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court while remitting the sentences of fine and
reducing the sentences of imprisonment to the periods already undergone by the
three living appellants,
HELD : I : J. In order to bring home the offence under. section 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act, the prosecution has to prove : (i) that the substance in
question is explosive substance; (ii) that the accused makes or knowingly has in
his possession or under his control any explosive substance ; and (iii) that he
does so under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he
is n~t doing so for a lawful object. [75D-G]
J : 2. The burden of proof of the ingredients of section 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, is on ·the prosecution. The moment prosecution has discharged
that burden, it shifts to the accused to show that he was making or possessing
the explosive substance for a lawful object, if he takes that plea. [75F-G]
2. On a consideration of the evidence of the Explosive Inspector, and
other evidence, the substances in question which were recovered from the appe-
T
I
....
I
M.U. M.H. MANIYAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Baharul Islam, J.)
69
llants were "explosive substances" within the definition of that expression in sec-
A
tion 2 of the Explosive Substances Act. [76 F G]
3 : l. The factum of the recovery of the said articles from the possession
of appellant No. 1 and also the evidence that his three sons, appellants 2 to 4,
who were managing and running the shop of M. F. Maniyar and Sons from
which the incriminating substances were seized clearly show that all of them were
guilty. [76 G-H, 77A]
3 : 2. The several substances seized, not being minute or small in quantity,
make it clear that the appellants were in "conscious possession" of the substances
seized within the meaning of section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. [77A-B]
· 3 : 3. The possession of the explosive substances by the appellants were
without any authority since the appellants had no licence or authority to make or
possess the explosive substances as required by the Government of India, Ministry
of Works & Housing and Urban, notification dated 1st April, 1966. The licence
possessed by them is dated 3.1-3-1956 which was not in pursuance and in confor-
mity of the said Government notification.
[77G-H]
3 : 4. The knowledge that the particular substance is an explosive subs-
tance depends on different circumstances and varies from person to person. Un-
like an ignorant man or a child coming across an explosive substance who
picks it up out of curiosity not knowing that it is an explosive substance, a person
of experience may immediately know that ·it is an explosive substance. In the
instant case, as the appellant had been dealing with the substance in.question for
a long time, they certainly knew or at least they shall be presumed to have known
what those substances were and for what purpose they were Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.