APHC010144182014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: Between: 1. KOITHURI PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 22-11, TAVVA BAPANAIAH STREET, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 1. STATE OF AP REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against an order of conviction under Section “Explosives Act”.). 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 685 OF 2014 KOITHURI PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 11, TAVVA BAPANAIAH STREET, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER AND REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Order : The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against an order of conviction under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 (for brevity IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3560] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA 2014 KOITHURI PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 11, TAVVA BAPANAIAH STREET, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT ...RESPONDENT The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against an order of 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 (for brevity 2 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the Petitioner had no license to possess/ store fire crackers, instead of that Police have received a credible information that the Petitioner has stored huge quantity of fire crackers in Shops at Potti Sriramulu Complex, Chilakaluripet. On receipt of information, the Police have rushed to the said complex with a team on 29.07.2008 at about 3.00 p.m and found Accused in front of Shop No. 20. Huge quantity of fire crackers were seized in the presence of shop owners and mediators and a case was started in Crime No. 152 of 2008. 3. During trial, the prosecution has placed as many as 9 witnesses including Mediators being PW-4 and placed some documents, which are marked as Ex.P1 to P7. Learned Trial Court on the basis of evidences of the prosecution found the present Petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act and directed the Accused to suffer imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Against which, the Petitioner approached the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court and confirmed by learned Appellate Court is illegal and improper. He further submits that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the present Petitioner. Admittedly, father of the Petitioner have license of fire cracker business. The Police have falsely implicated a 24 years old boy (Petitioner) in the instant Crime case. 3 5. He further submits that learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has decided the issue in a wrong notion and found the present Petitioner guilty. He has placed relevant portion of the judgment and submits that the judgment and order of conviction of learned courts below is improper. It is his positive contention that the Mediators Report and evidence of Mediator has never been proved the guilt against the present Petitioner. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation of illegal possession of explosive substances by the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the evidence of Investigating Officer is not justified to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has categorically scanned the evidences. Conviction of the Petitioner was based on evidence of mediator, who specifically deposed that the huge quantity of explosives was seized from the possession of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had stored huge quantity of explosives without having any valid license. Nothing has been suggested before learned Trial Court that the explosives were seized from the licensed premises of the Petitioner’s father and it was seized in this case in different places. He further submits that the Mediator’s Report has been sufficiently proved. Accordingly the conviction is maintainable. He also placed reliance upon the observation of the learned Appellate Court, wherein the Appellate Court has observed that the Petitioner has taken interim custody of the fire 4 crackers by virtue of an Affidavit made before learned Trial Court contending inter alia that he allegedly purchased those fire crackers in the name of M/s Annapurna Fire Works. Such conduct itself proves the guilt of the Petitioner relating to possession of those crackers. He further submits that same mediator (PW-9) was present in connection with other three cases, which were registered by Police on the same day. Thereby, there was a confusion in mentioning the dates of mediator nama (seizure list). He further submits that learned Appellate Court as well as learned Trial Court has specifically scanned the evidences and the order of conviction is justified. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the order of conviction passed by learned Trial Court, confirmed by learned Appellate Court. It appears that though several witnesses were placed by the prosecution to prove the charge against the present Petitioner, but only, PWs-4 and 8 are supported the prosecution case. PWs 1, 2 and 3 are the owners of the shops where the fire crackers allegedly stored and were seized. During evidence, they could not identify the Accused and not supported prosecution. PW-4 is the Village Revenue Officer, who was cited as mediator in the instant case. During his evidence, he stated before the Court that he was working as Village Revenue Officer. On 30.07.2008, the Sub- Inspector of Police called him to be present there as a mediator. The instant FIR as well as Charge Sheet stated that the Police have received information regarding illegal storage of fire crackers at the said complex on 29.07.2008. It has been stated in the FIR that the Police proceeded with team in the shops, on the 5 basis of information on 29.07.2008 at about 3.00 p.m. According to FIR, the seizure was also started on 29.07.2008 at about 3.00 p.m and it was continued till 2.00 a.m on 30.07.2008 (early morning). It has further revealed from the Charge Sheet that the Accused was arrested on 30.07.2008 at 1.30 a.m, i.e after completion of seizure. Thereafter, all seizure items as well as FIR was reached to the Police Station at about 2.00 a.m on 30.07.2008. 8. On verification of evidence of PW-4, it appears that during examination in chief he has stated that the S.I of Police i.e PW-8 called him on 30.07.2008. During the cross examination, he admitted that he put signature in the mediator nama i.e Ex.P4 by mentioning the date as 29.07.2008. During cross examination he also stated that he signed the papers pertaining to the case of on 30.07.2008 after Police called him about 9.00 a.m to 9.30 a.m. He also stated that after reaching the place of occurrence, he immediately left after signature on mediator nama. On the basis of such evidence, learned Trial Court is of the view that PW-4 is an independent Village Revenue Officer, who was acted as a mediator in all four cases, for that reason, the said witness was confused in mentioning the time and date of the signature over the seizure list. The same contention was also supported by learned Appellate Court by holding that there may have some discrepancies with regard to date of seizure, but the evidence of PW-4 cannot be dis-recorded. 9. In a case under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act, the prosecution has to prove the charge against the Accused regarding illegal possession of explosive without having any license. Admittedly, the Petitioner do not have 6 license, but his father had license. To prove the illegal possession, the prosecution has to produce necessary documents and evidences to prove that explosives were stored in a particular place other than licensed premises. 10. In this particular case, it is the case of the prosecution that the huge explosives were stored by the Petitioner in said complex. To prove storing of such huge explosives PWs 1 to 3 were placed to say that in their shop room, the fire crackers were stored. PWs 1 to 3 did not say anything regarding prosecution case and did not support the prosecution case. 11. PW-4 is the mediator, who according to prosecution is the person, who has seen the seizure of Police of fire crackers from the place of occurrence. PW-4 during his cross examination has clearly stated that he was there at the said complex on 30.07.2008. The instant case Police has started seizing fire crackers in place of occurrence at about 3.00 p.m on 29.07.2008. The PW-4 may be a Village Revenue Officer, who was acted as a mediator in four cases, but prosecution has liability to prove illegal store of fire crackers by the Petitioner in a particular place, otherwise than the licensed premises. The Mediator has specifically sated that he had been at the place of occurrence on 30.07.2008 and left the place after signature. 12. On plain perusal of the evidence of PW-4, I find no confusion regarding presence of mediator at the said complex on 30.07.2008. There is no suggestion on behalf of the prosecution that mediator was there on 29.07.2008. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court is of the 7 view that mediator must confused. In the light of evidences on record, any confusion in evidence of prosecution in criminal trial be reckoned as benefit of doubt in favour of the Accused. If the evidence of PW-4 be taken into account properly, I find no justification to hold that PW-4 being a mediator was present at the time of seizure. Accordingly, the mediator-nama (seizure list) which was signed by the mediator (PW-4) cannot prove the illegal possession of huge amount of explosive by the Petitioner in the said complex. 13. Learned Appellate Court has observed that by virtue of order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, dated 29.09.2008, the Petitioner was given custody of explosive fire crackers. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court is of the view that taking possession of such fire crackers i.e case property by the Petitioner itself prove his possession more over in Affidavit it has specifically stated regarding his running business with his father. It is further observed by learned Appellate Court that the Petitioner had no license to run the fire cracker business. Thus, the custody of case property/ fire crackers itself prove the guilt. 14. I make it clear that a criminal case initiates on the basis of FIR/ complaint and after completion of investigation by submission of Charge Sheet, the entire collection of materials required for proving guilt of Accused has been closed. Learned Courts below cannot take cognizance of the subsequent fact regarding an Affidavit or receiving case property by the Petitioner/ Accused. Moreover, in this case the alleged offence is illegal possession of explosives by the Petitioner, there is no allegation for running 8 illegal business by the Petitioner. Thus, the observation of learned Trial Court on the basis of order of custody of case property by the Petitioner is not appears to me legal one. 15. Under the above observation, it appears to me that an order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below only on the basis of evidences of PWs-4 and 8 is not justified. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the Petitioner under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act, read with Section 286 of IPC. Accordingly, the order of conviction recorded against the Petitioner is hereby set aside and Petitioner is hereby acquitted. 16. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 30.12.2025 KK 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 685 OF 2014 30.12.2025 KK 10