Recovery of explosive substance

2019 SCMR 2012 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 5AAnti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(g)Recovery of explosive substanceReappraisal of evidenceBenefit of doubtRecovery, proof of

Explosives weighing 15 kilograms along with detonators and electric fuses was alleged to have been recovered from accused persons while they were travelling in a bus, where one accused had dressed himself as a woman

Trial Court convicted accused persons and sentenced them to imprisonment for life but High Court reduced sentence of one accused to imprisonment for ten years

Validity

Despite extensive search, police could not be able to retrieve Bus tickets, a surer means within the realm of possibility, to establish journey of petitioners with the contraband

Intercepting accused attired in feminine garments by male personnel in presence of public without lady constable, was a story that could not be believed

Prosecution's reliance on statement of expert to establish explosive potential of the material was beside the mark in the face of admission by that witness that he was not an expert in the field and as such hardly in a position to drive home the charge

Imprisonment for life was quite a span and an accused could not be deprived of the best portion of his life on slipshod, incoherent and suspect evidence even in cases with heinous contours

Prosecution's case was not entirely free from doubt and it was unsafe to maintain the conviction

Supreme Court set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

2014 PCrLJ 308 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 497Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss.3, 4 & 5Recovery of explosive substanceBail, refusal ofPotassium Chlorate packed in 80 sacks was recovered from the possession of accusedPlea raised by accused was that the material recovered from them was not explosive itselfValidity

"Potassium Chloride" by itself was not an explosive substance but accused were found in possession of "Potassium Chlorate" and not "Potassium Chloride"

"Potassium Chlorate" was derived from "Potassium Chloride" by means of chemical process and the same could be used in country made bombs etc.

Besides evidence of Bomb Disposal Commander, prosecution had also placed on record certificate issued in that regard

Mere possession, in absence of strict proof of mala fide intention of person in possession of explosive did not constitute offence within the meaning of either S.3 or 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and case would be covered by S.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Tentative assessment of evidence available on record gave rise to suspicion and accused had not been able to give any plausible explanation to dispel the same

Sentence for a term which might extend to fourteen years, had been provided under S.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the same fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was refused in circumstances.

2014 PCrLJ 802 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 5 & 7Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-ARecovery of explosive substanceQuashing of proceedingsSanction of Provincial Government for trialApplication filed by accused for his acquittal was dismissed by Trial CourtPlea raised by accused was that there was no sanction of Provincial Government for trialValidity

Sanction for prosecution for holding trial under S.7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was mandatory and sanction for prosecution of accused under S.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, was condition precedent, therefore, trial/proceedings could not be concluded in express violation of prohibitory and mandatory provision of law and hence trial was vitiated

High Court, to prevent abuse of process of Trial Court quashed proceedings against accused before Trial Court

Application was allowed in circumstances.