Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain
Maniyar & ANR Vs. State of Maharashtra  INSC 53 (3 March 1981)
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) REDDY,
O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION: 1981 AIR 1062 1981 SCR (3) 68 1981
SCC (2) 443 1981 SCALE (1)445
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.
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
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] 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]
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 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
(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 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 information from P.W. 17. P.W. 18 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
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
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.
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
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
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 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 appellants were in 'conscious possession' of the
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
or (c) for use in toy amorces (paper caps for
Under Secretary to the Government of
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.
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 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 at least 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.
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
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
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. 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
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.