P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

Muhammad Ashraf appellant was convicted of an offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act of 1908 and he was sentenced by Captain S. A. Gardezi, Additional District Magistrate by his order dated 9‑1‑1957 to four year' rigorous imprisonment. He came up to this Court on appear One of my learned brothers by his order dated 7‑12‑57 set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial Court for de novo trial. The defect in the order of conviction was that the report of the Inspector of Explosives was not con sidered to be a legal evidence.

2. When the case was retried the accused was discharged by the order of the Magistrate dated 1‑9‑1958 because at that trial, Sher Muhammad, Sub‑Inspector of Police was. not examined with regard to the recovery of the hand grenade from the possession of the accused. Only two witnesses, Allah Dad Khan, Lambardar and Ahmad Khan Zamindar, were examined and as they were found to be the enemies of the accused, their evidence was not believed as true. A revision application was preferred against that order to the District Magistrate, Campbell pur and by his order dated 3‑1‑1959, he set aside the order of discharge and directed the retrial of the accused. He was tried again, this time by Mr. Sheikh Amil Hussain, was found guilty of the offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and was sentenced to 41 years' rigorous imprisonment on 31‑1‑1959. Against this order he has appealed to this Court.

3. On the evidence adduced the conviction is justified. One Sher Muhammad, Sub‑Inspector appeared and stated that on information received, he went to the house of the accused to search it. One hand grenade and a detonator were produced before him by the accused himself. These articles were sent to the Inspector of Explosives, Karachi for examination and the Inspector of Explosives reported that these were explosive substances within the meaning of Explosive Substances Act of 1908.

4. The Inspector of Explosives was examined through a commission. He stated that he was notified by the Government as a Chemical Examiner for the purposes of section 510, Cr. P. C. and his report could be taken into consideration as evidence under that section of the Code. From his report it is clear that the hand‑grenade belongs to services and is dangerous to life and property.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the accused that the report of the Inspector of Explosives cannot be treated as evidence under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because he is not a Chemical Examiner to the Government. This contention is untenable. Section 510 says:- "Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical' Examiner to the Government may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code." This section makes a report of a Chemical Examiner to the, Government admissible as evidence at trials. In order to make a report admissible as evidence under that section all that required is that the report should be one made by a person who should be a Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government. Any person holding any post if he is declared to be a Chemical Examiner to the Government, becomes a Chemical Examiner to the Government and his report comes fall within the ambit of section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is in evidence that the Government has by a notification declared the Inspector of Explosives to be a Chemical Examiner to the Government for the purpose of section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Inspector of Explosives is; therefore a Chemical Examiner to the Government and his report can be admitted in evidence in any inquiry or trial under the Code.

6. The evidence on record conclusively proves that the appellant was in possession of a hand‑grenade and a detonator. He was most clearly guilty of the offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and his conviction has a clear warrant in facts and is hereby maintained.

7. With regard to sentence the appellant deserves some leniency. He was first convicted on 9‑1‑1957 and was in jail for a long time. His case was twice remanded for retrial and he was subjected to a great worry and expense. In my view a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, upholding his conviction under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act reduce the sentence of imprisonment to three years' R. I.

8. With this alteration in sentence the appeal is dismissed. K. B. A./A. H. Appeal dismissed Sentence reduced.