Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMAD USMAN MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN MANIYAR & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/03/1981
BENCH:
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
BENCH:
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION:
1981 AIR 1062 1981 SCR (3) 68
1981 SCC (2) 443 1981 SCALE (1)445
ACT:
Explosive Substances Act, sections 2 and 5-Whether
potassium cyanide, mixture of potassium cyanide and sulphur,
detonators etc. etc., are ’explosive substances’ within 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.
HEADNOTE:
Government of India, Ministry of Works & Housing and
Urban Development Notification No. 3/12/65-PII(IX) dated 1st
April, 1966, requiring a licence to make or possess the
explosive substances-Possession without such a licence, of
the explosive substances is unauthorised.
Penal Code, section 120B-Criminal conspiracy-Nature of
proof.
Fakhruddin, the owner of the shop, known as M. F.
Maniyar & Sons, Sholapur, along with his three sons, was
tried for offences under section 120B of the Penal Code,
section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, section 3 read
with section 25 of the Arms Act and section 6(1)(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:1 :1. 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 not doing so for a lawful object. [75D-G]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
1: 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-
69
llants were "explosive substances" within the definition of
that expression in section 2 of the Explosive Substances
Act. [76F G]
3: 1. 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 31-3-1956 which
was not in pursuance and in conformity of the said
Government notification. [77G-H]
3: 4. The knowledge that the particular substance is an
explosive substance depends on different circumstances and
varies from person to person. Unlike 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 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 used. The said presumption is further
fortified from the fact that a half K.G. of blasting powder/
potassium cyanide was sold to the decoy witness by the
appellants. [78E-F, G]
4. For an offence under section 120B of the Penal Code
the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the
perpetraters expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the
illegal act: the agreement may be proved by necessary
implication. In this case, the fact that the appellants were
possessing and selling explosive substances without a valid
licence for a pretty long time leads to the inference that
they agreed to do and/or cause to be done the said illegal
act, for, without such an agreement the act could not have
been done for such a long time.[79G-H, 80A]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
150/76 and 285 of 1976.
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 29.1.1976 of the Bombay High Court in Cr. A. 526/73.
S. B. Bhasme, V. N. Ganpule and Mrs. V. D. Khanna for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
the Appellant in Cr. A. 150/76.
U. R. Lalit and K. R. Chowdhary for the Appellant in
Cr. A. 285/76
70
R. N. Sachthey and M. N. Shroff for the Respondents in
both the Appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BAHARUL ISLAM J. These two appeals arise out of a
common judgment and order passed by the High Court of
Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1976 has been preferred
by two appellants, Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar
(hereinafter "Usman") and Mohammad Taufik Mohammad Hussain
Maniyar (hereinafter ’Taufik’) and Criminal Appeal No. 285
of 1976 has been preferred by Mohammad Hussain Fakhruddin
Maniyar (hereinafter ’Fakhruddin) and Mohammad Rizwan
Mohammad Hussain Maniyar (hereinafter ’Rizwan’). All of them
were convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge as
follows:
(i) Under Section 120B of the Penal Code and sentenced
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years,
each;
(ii) Under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three
years each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each, in
default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two
months, each;
(iii) Under Section 5 (3) (b) of the Explosives Act and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six
months, each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in
default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one
month, each;
(iv) Under Section 3 read with Section 25(1) (a) of the
Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two months each;
(v) Under Section 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks, each;
(vi) Under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Poisons Act read
with Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the said Act
and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
one month, each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-
each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 15 days, each.
The substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The first two preferred one appeal and the
second two a separate appeal before the High Court. The High
Court by a common judgment dismissed both the appeals. Hence
this appeal before us
71
by special leave. This common judgment of ours will dispose
of both the appeals.
2. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court,
appellant, Fakhruddin, died on 10.10.1978. His legal
representatives have been brought on record as there are
sentences of fine against the deceased appellant.
3. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of
these appeals may be stated thus:
In the year 1967 a number of murders were perpetrated
by a gang of murderers. During the course of investigation
into these offences, potassium cyanide was found to have
been used for poisoning the victims. On 11.9.1964, P.W.17,
Bendre, P.S.I, who was attached to the local crime branch at
Sholapur received an information that the firm known as M.F.
Maniyar & Sons was selling potassium chlorate which is a
highly explosive substance. He then initiated the work of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
finding out the persons responsible for the supply of the
explosive to the miscreants. He received information that
appellant, Fakhruddin, was the owner of the shop known as
M.F. Maniyar & Sons, situated at house No. 383, East
Mangalwar Peth, Sholapur, and possessed licence for sale and
storage of potassium chlorate in House No. 615 in East
Mangalwar Peth; Fakhruddin with the assistance of his three
sons (appellants 2 to 4) and his servants stored at the
place mentioned in their shop situated at house No. 383,
East Mangalwar Peth, to persons who did not possess licence
to purchase potassium chlorate. P.W. 17 and Sub-inspector
Tasgaokar of the local Intelligence Branch proceeded to
Mangalwar Peth Police Chowky and called a bogus customer
’Basanna Pujari’ by name. He also called the local panchas.
He, then, gave a ten rupee currency note to P.W.4. He
initialled the currency note. He also gave a bag to P.W.4.
and told him to buy half kg. of potassium chlorate from M/s.
M.F. Maniyar & Sons. P.W.4 went to the shop. He found in the
shop accused Chandra Kant (since acquitted), who was a
servant of Fakhruddin. P.W.5 gave him the ten rupee currency
note and asked for half kg. of potassium chlorate. which he
said he needed for blasting purpose. Chandra Kant gave him
half k.g of potassium chlorate and returned an amount of Rs.
2.50p. P.W.4 took the powder in the bag and was returning.
Police challenged him and seized the bag. Police
interrogated him. He told police in presence of the Panchas
that he had purchased the powder which was inside of the bag
from M.F. Maniyar and got back Rs. 2.50P. P.W.17 searched
the cash box in the firm of Fakhruddin and found
72
the ten rupee currency note initialled by him. The shop was
searched and 220 grams of Black gun powder was found in the
show case. He then alongwith the panchas went up to the
first floor. They found black gun powder there also. They
found it to be a mixture of potassium chlorate and sulphate
used for fire arms. Samples were sealed and one of them was
given to appellant, Fakhruddin. A panchnama, Ex.20, was
prepared. P.W.17, thought it necessary to send for an expert
to identify the powder. He, therefore, posted some
constables at the shop, sealed appellants’ godowns in
Mangalwar Peth and Shukrawar Peth and made panchnamas,
Exhibits 22 and 23. Next morning, he sealed both the shops
and prepared panchnamas Exhibits 24 and 25. On 13th
September, he sent the samples to the Explosives Inspector.
On the 14th he lodged a complaint at the Jail Road Police
Station at Sholapur. Police registered a case and the P.S.I
started investigation. The P.S.I sent for the Drugs
Inspector and the Central Excise Inspector. All of them,
then visited the appellants’ godowns at Shukarwar Peth at
Sholapur. They found the shops in the sealed condition. A
search was conducted in the presence of the appellants. The
Police officer and others, having observed due formalities,
searched the premises. In course of the search they found
and seized some powder as per Panchnama, Ex. 27. Samples of
the powder seized were also given to the appellants. After
that they went and searched the appellants’ premises in
Mangalwar Peth. Nothing incriminating was found there. They,
then, returned to the firm M/s. M.F. Maniyar and searched
it. They found and seized some powders as per Panchnama, Ex.
28. Samples of these powders also were given to the
appellants. On the same night they found 49 percussion caps
on the roof of the adjacent shop and seized them as per Ext.
30. On the same night P.S. I., Patil, received a panchnama
made by P.S.I., Joshi, (P.W.18) under which detonators had
been seized. Acting on an information from P.W. 17. P.W. 18
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
arrested appellant, Taufik on September 15, 1967. Appellant,
Taufik told the police that he had buried some detonators in
the compound of his bungalow and he would produce them.
Accordingly, he led P.W. 18 to his bungalow which was
admittedly in occupation of all the appellants, removed some
earth under a mango tree in the premises and took out three
tins containing 20 packets of detonators. It was seized
under panchnama, Ex. 33. As the detonators were explosive
they were not opened. Taufik was arrested and produced
before P.W.17.
The Explosives Inspector was of the opinion that some
of the explosives seized were highly explosive. P.W.17,
then, with the
73
permission of the District Superintendent of Police
destroyed the explosives as instructed by the Explosives
Inspector.
4. During the course of investigation from 11.9.1967 to
15.9.1967 the following arms and explosives were seized:-
(1) 200 grams of highly explosive gun powder.
(2) 40 kg. and 150 grams of blasting powder.
(3) 3 kg. and 350 g. of mixture of potassium chlorate
and sulphur.
(4) 54 detonators.
(5) 251 caps like contrivances containing prohibited
mixture of red arsenic sulphide and chlorate used
to act as improvised percussions caps.
(6) 104 kg. and 500 g. of potassium chlorate.
(7) 37.5 kg. of special gelatines.
(8) 300 kg. of sulphur.
(9) 2496c campion crackers of prohibited size and
containing prohibited mixtures.
(10) 510 grams of potassium cyanide.
(11) About 450 kg. of sulphur.
(12) 217 caps like contrivances of the same description
as is the case with item No. 5 above.
(13) 2500 detonaters.
(14) 27 live cartridges, 12 bores, and
(15) Mixture of sulphur and potassium chlorate 1/2 kg.
Out of these articles, the articles at serial Nos. 1 to
5 were found in the shop of M/s. M.F. Maniyar & Sons.
Articles at serial numbers 6 to 11 were found in the
clandestine godown situated at 986, Shukarwar Peth at
Sholapur on 15.9.1967. Article at serial no. 12 was found on
the roof at East Mangalwar Peth, Shukarwar which is adjacent
to the shop of M/s.M.F. Maniyar & Sons. Article at serial
number 13 were produced by appellant, Taufik, as stated
earlier from the compound of their bungalow at 156A, Railway
Lines,
74
Sholapur. Articles at serial number 14 consist of 12 bore
cartridges found in the house of accused Abdulla Mandolkar
(since acquitted). They were alleged to have been delivered
by appellant, Fakhruddin, to accused, Fateh Ahmed Phuleri
(since acquitted). The article at serial number 15 was the
one sold to P.W. 4, Basanna by accused, Chandrakant (since
acquitted).
5. Appellant number 1 is the father of appellants 2 to
4. Accused Chandrakant and Fateh Ahmed (both since
acquitted) were the servants of Fakhruddin working in the
shop. Accused Abdula Mandolkar (since acquitted) was a
relation of Fateh Ahmed. Police after investigation
submitted charge-sheet. Eventually the appellants and the
three other above named co-accused were committed to the
court of Sessions for trial.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
6. The allegations against the appellants in substance
were that they agreed to do the following illegal acts; (i)
to acquire and prepare explosives unauthorisedly and to
possess and supply explosives for illegal purposes; (ii) to
acquire and possess sulphur unauthorisedly and to sell the
same; (iii) to acquire and possess and sell gun-powder and
cartridges in breach of the conditions of the licence
granted under the Arms Act and Explosives Act; (iv) to
acquire and stock in clandestine godown and illegally sell
potassium chlorate in breach of the conditions of the
licence granted under the provisions of the Arms Act; (v) to
acquire without licence percussion caps and to sell them
illegally; and (vi) to acquire and posssess without licence
poison and to sell the same illegally. The changes were also
to the above effect.
7. The appellants pleaded not guilty. In his statement
under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
appellant, Fakhruddin, additionally stated that he alone
managed the shop M/s. M.F. Maniyar & Sons from which the
incriminating substances were found. He admitted his
presence at the place and at the time of the first raid on
the 11th September He has also admitted the search and
seizure of articles as per Exhibit 28. He has also admitted
that potassium cyanide was purchased and possessed by him
but he has pleaded that he was told that no licence was
necessary for possessing potassium cyanide.
8. Mr. Lalit learned Advocate, appeared for appellants
no. 1 & 2 and Mr. Bhasme, learned Advocate, appeared for
appellants 3 & 4. Learned counsel have not challenged the
convictions and sentences of the appellants under Section
5(3)(b), Section 3 read
75
with Section 25(1)(a), and Section 30 of the Arms Act, and
under Section 6(1)(a) of the Poison Act read with rule 2 of
the rules framed under that Act. They have only challenged
the conviction and sentences under Section 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act, and Section 120B of the Penal
Code. We are, therefore, called upon to examine the
correctness or otherwise of the convictions under Section 5
of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 120B of the
Penal Code.
9. Let us first consider the conviction under Section 5
of the Explosives Substances Act. The Section reads as
follows:
5. "Any person who makes or knowingly has in his
possession or under his control any explosive
substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to
a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does
not have it in his possession or under his control for
a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made
it or had it in his possession or under his control for
a lawful object, be punishable with transportation for
a term which may extend to fourteen years, to which
fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a terms
which may extend to five years, to which fine may be
added"
10. 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 not doing so
for a lawful object.
The burden of proof of these ingredients is on the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
prosecution. The moment the 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.
11. Explosive substance has been defined in section 2
of the Explosive Substances Act. The definition is as
follows:
"2. In this Act the expression "explosive
substance" shall be deemed to include any materials for
making any explosive substance; also any apparatus,
machine, implement or material used, or intended to be
used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any
explosion in or with any explosive
76
substance; also any part of any such apparatus, machine
or implement."
"Explosive substance" has a broader and more
comprehensive meaning than the term ’Explosive’, ’Explosive
substance’ includes ’Explosive’. The term ’Explosive’ has
not been defined in the Act. The dictionary meaning of the
word ’Explosive’ is ’tending to expand suddenly with loud
noise; ’tending to cause explosion’ (The Concise Oxford
Dictionary). In the Explosives Act, the terms ’explosive’
has been defined as follows:
"4. In this Act, unless there is something
repugnant in the Definitions, subject or context,-
(1) "explosive"
(a) means gunpowder, nitro-glycerine, dynamite,
guncotton, blasting powders, fulminate of mercury
or of other metals, coloured fires and every other
substance, whether similar to those above-
mentioned or not, used or manufactured with a view
to produce a practical effect by explosion, or a
pyrotechnic effect; and
(b) includes fog-signals, fireworks, fuses, rockets,
percussion-caps, detonators, cartridges,
ammunition of all descriptions, and every
adaptation or preparation of an explosive as above
defined;"
It may be mentioned that the definition of ’explosive’
under Section 4 was amended later, but we are not concerned
with the amendment as the occurrence in the instant case
took place before the amendment.
On a consideration of the evidence of the Explosives
Inspector, and other evidence. the Sessions Judge and the
High Court have found, in our opinion correctly, that the
substances in question were explosive substances within the
definition of the expression.
12. In the instant case, appellant I has admitted, as
stated earlier, that these articles were seized from his
possession. The evidence also shows that his three sons,
appellants 2 to 4, used to manage and run the shop M. F.
Maniyar & Sons from which the incriminating substance were
seized.
13. It was argued by learned counsel that possession
within the meaning of Section 5 of the Explosive Substances
Act means
77
’conscious possession’. There can be no doubt about it. The
substances seized were not minute or small in quantity. They
were in large quantities. In fact half k.g. of the
incriminating substance was sold to P. W. 4 by an employee
of the firm. The detonators were produced by appellant No. 3
from the premises of the Bungalow occupied by all the
occupants. It cannot but, therefore, be held that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
appellants were in ’conscious possession’ of the substance
seized.
14. The notification dated 1st of April, 1966 published
by the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing
and Urban Development (Ex. 65) reads as follows:
"NOTIFICATION"
No. 3/12/65-PII (IX)-In exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 6 of the Indian Explosives Act,
1884 (4 of 1884), and in supersession of the
notification of the Government of India in the later
Department of Labour No. M-1217, dated the 9th February
1939, the Central Government is pleased to prohibit the
manufacture, possession and importation of any
explosive consisting of or containing sulphur or
sulphurate in admixture with chlorate or potassium or
any other chlorate;
Provided that this prohibition shall not extend to
the manufacture or possession of such explosive:-
(a) in small quantities for scientific purpose;
(b) for the purpose of manufacturing heads of matches;
or
(c) for use in toy amorces (paper caps for toy
pistols).
Sd/- P. Rajaratnam
Under Secretary to the Government
of India"
The appellants had no licence or authority to make or
possess the explosive substances as required by the above
Government notification. The licence possessed by them is
dated 31.3.1956 (Exhibit 90) which was not in pursuance and
in conformity of the aforesaid Government Notification. The
possession of the ’explosive substances’ by the appellants,
therefore, were without any authority.
78
15. Learned counsel for the appellants cited before us
1939 (2) All E. R. 641 in support of his contention. The
head note of the report reads:
"Upon an indictment against an accused for
knowingly having in his possession explosive
substances, the prosecution has to prove that the
accused was in possession of an explosive substance
within the Explosive Substances Act, 1883, s. 9, in
circumstances giving rise to a reasonable presumption
that possession was not for a lawful object. Proof of
knowledge by the accused of the explosive nature of the
substance is not essential, nor need any chemical
knowledge on the part of the accused be proved."
The appellants have also cited another English decision
reported in 1957 (1) All E.R. 665 in which it has been
observed:
"We think that the clear meaning of the section is
that the person must not only knowingly have in his
possession the substance but must know that it is an
explosive substance. The section says he must knowingly
have in his possession an explosive substance;
therefore it does seem that it is an ingredient in the
offence that he knew it was an explosive substance."
With respect, the above decisions lay the correct legal
proposition. But the question is whether in his case
appellants knew that the substances in question were
explosive substances. The knowledge whether a particular
substance is an explosive substance depends on different
circumstances and varies from person to person. An ignorant
man or a child coming across an explosive substance may pick
it up out of curiosity and not knowing that it is an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
explosive substance. A person of experience may immediately
know that it is an explosive substance. In the instant case,
the appellants had been dealing with the substances in
question for a long time. They certainly knew or atleast
they shall be presumed to have known what these substances
they were and for what purpose they were used. In fact, when
P. W. 4 Basanna asked for half k. g. of blasting powder,
appellants’ servant, accused Chandrakant, immediately
supplied the requisite powder to P. W. 4 from the shop. This
evidence clearly establishes that the appellants did know
the nature and character of the substance. In other words,
they knew that the substances in question were explosive
substances. The courts below therefore, were right in
holding that an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act was committed.
79
16. Learned Counsel submitted that the evidence on
record shows that appellant, Fakhruddin, alone acquired and
possessed the substance in question. That was the plea of
Fakhruddin. It also might be true that Fakhruddin also had
acquired the substances but the evidence on record clearly
shows that all the appellants were in possession and control
of the substances in question. The submission of the
appellants has no substance and all the four persons are
liable for the offence.
17. Now to turn to the conviction under Section 120B of
the Penal Code. Section 120B provides:
"120B. (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable........... "
‘Criminal conspiracy’ has been defined under Section
120A of the Penal Code as follows:
"120 A. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause
to be done.-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such
an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:-
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy
unless some tact besides the agreement is done by one or
more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.-It is immaterial whether the illegal act
is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object,"
The contention of learned counsel is that there is no
evidence of agreement of the appellants to do an illegal
act.
It is true that there is no evidence of any express
agreement between the appellants to do or cause to be done
the illegal act. For an offence under section 120B, the
prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators
expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act;
the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. In
this case, the fact that the appellants were possessing and
selling explosive substances without a valid licence for a
pretty
80
long time leads to the inference that they agreed to do
and/or cause to be done the said illegal act, for, without
such an agreement the act could not have been done for such
a long time.
17. Mr. Lalit additionally submitted that appellant No.
2 Rizwan did not do any overt act. He was a mere partner of
M/s. M.F. Maniyar & Sons and as such his conviction has been
bad in law. The submission is not correct. For, appellant
Rizwan himself in his statement under Section 342, Cr. P.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
C., has stated "Myself (and) accused Nos. 1 and 4 looked
after the business of the Firm. M.F. Maniyar & Sons". The
learned courts below on a consideration of the evidence on
record have come to the conclusion that he also occasionally
used to work in the firm. We do not have valid reason to
differ from them.
18. Now comes the question of sentence. The real man in
the entire clandestine trade was appellant no. 1, who is now
dead. The three other appellants being his sons were merely
assisting him. We are told that appellant no. 2, Rizwan, has
already served 81/2 months of imprisonment and appellants 3
and 4, Usman and Taufik, six months of imprisonment each. In
our view ends of justice will be met if the sentences of
imprisonment are reduced to the periods already undergone by
the three living appellants.
In addition to the sentence of imprisonment there was a
fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under Section 5 of
the Explosive Substances Act and also sentence of fine
against the appellants under Section 5(3) (b) of the
Explosives Act and under Section 30 of the Arms Act. In our
opinion, ends of justice will be met if the fine under
Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act is remitted in
case of all the appellants, including appellant No. 1,
Fakhruddin. With the above modification in the sentence the
appeals are dismissed.
S. R. Appeals dismissed.
81