MOHD. USMAN versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 12-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MOHD, USMAN 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
March 12, 1968 
A 
(S. M. S!KRI, J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
B 
l11dia11 Explosives Act, 1884 (4 of 1884), s. 5(3)-Minors permitted 
to enter licensed pre.niises-Punish1nent under "tt•hich cl. of s. 5(3). 
Explosive Rules, 1940, r. 16-Ji.tinors pernzitted to inter licensed pre· 
mises-Punislunent under which cl. of s. 5(3). 
The appellant, a manufacturer of fireworks was convicted under s. 
5 ( 3) of the Indian Explosives Act as he. had allowed minors to work in 
the manufacture of fireworks thus contravening r. 16 of the Explosives 
Rules. 
HELD: Clause (a) of s. 5(3) deals with a person who imports or 
manufactures in .contravention of tho Rules; cl. (b) deals with a person 
who 'possesses; uses, sells or transports any explosive in contravention of 
the Rules; and cl. (c) deals with the contravention of the Rules in other 
ca5es. If there is a breach of a rule, it has to be ascertained in each case 
whether the rule or part of it relates to activities mentioned in cl. (a) 
of s. 5(3) or cl. (b) of s. 5(3). If it does not relate to any of the 
activities mentioned in cl. (a) or cl. (b) of s. 5(3) the breach of the 
rule would fall under cl. (c), ·of s. 5(3). [430 A-B; 431 HJ 
Jn this case, though it. was established that the minors were employed 
1n or allowed to enter the premises, it was not proved that the minors 
were employed in any of the activities mentioned in cl. (a) or cl. (b) of s. 
5(3). Nor it has been proved that any manufacture of fireworks was 
<lone on that day. 
So the contravention of r. 16 on the facts found, 
could only be punishable under cl. (c) of s. 5(3). [432 BJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
134 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 14, 1965 of the Patna High Court in Government Appeal 
No. 25 of 1962. 
N11r-ud-dit1 Ahmed and A. K. Nag, for the appellant. 
D. P. Singh, Anil Kumar and S/rivpujan 
Singh, 
for 
the 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal by s~ial leave is directed against the 
judgment of the fatna High Court allowing the appeal filed by 
the State Govemmept and convicting the 
appellant, 
Mohd. 
Usman, under s. 5(3)(a) of the Indian Explosives Act. 
1884 
(IV of 1884 )-hereinafter referred to as the Act-and senten-
cing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and 
also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to undergo rigorous 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MOHD. USMAN. v,. BIHAR (Sikri, J.) 
429 
A imprisonment for a further period of six months. The High 
Court, however, agreed with the Magistrate that the appellant 
could not be held guilty under s. 304A, IPC. The High Court 
did not find the two other accused persons, Abdul Rahman and 
Abdul Aziz, guilty, and State appeals against them were dismiss.. 
ed. 
B 
The prosecution c;ise, in brief, is that an explosion occurred 
in appellant's factory at Matkuria, PS Dhanbad, on April 28, 
1960. As a result of the explosion Kashi Bhakta, Gobardhan 
Bhokta and Mohan Bour died. On that day, the appellant, who 
manufactures fireworks, had allowed minors (under 16 years of 
age), viz., Kashi Bhokta, Guhi Bhokta Gobardhan .and Subhas 
Chamar to work in the man11facture of fireworks, thus oOiltra-
vening r. 16 of the Explosives Rules, 194~hereinafter referred 
to as the Rules-made under the Act, and had thereby commit-
ted an offence punishable under s. 5 ( 3 )(a) of the Act. The 
High Court, disagreein~ with the Magistrate .who tried the case, 
held that "the three mlnor boys, Kashi, Guhi and Subhas, were 
employed and Gobardhan, in any event, was allowed to enter 
the premises licensed under the Rules for manufacture of ex-
plosives" in contravention of r. 16, anu convicted the appellant 
as already stated. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Section 5 ( 3) of the Act reads thus: 
"Any person contravening the rules made under this 
section shall lbe punishable-
(a) if he imports or manufactures any explosive in 
such contraventibn, with . imp$nment for a 
term which may extend to three years, or with 
fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, 
or with both; 
( b) if he possesses, uses, sells or transports 
any 
explosive in such contravention with imprison-
ment .for a term w.hich may extend tc two years, 
or with fine 
which 
may 
extend 
to three 
thousand rupees, or with both; and. 
(c) in any other case, with fine which may extend 
to one thousand rupees." 
Rule 16 of the Explosives Rules provides: 
"
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.