Skip to content


Santosh Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
AppellantSantosh Singh
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
.....22.3.2013 shri t.s.ruprah, senior advocate along with shri harpreet ruprah, advocate for the applicant. shri prakash gupta, panel lawyer for the state/respondent. heard on admission. the applicant has challenged the order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the learned third additional sessions judge, khandwa in s.t.no.94/2009, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 304 (ii).286 of ipc and section 5/9 of explosive substance act were framed against the applicant. the prosecution's case, in short, is that, the applicant kept some explosives in his house situated at village inpun. due to explosion, one mamta bai had expired. the learned senior advocate of the applicant submits that the applicant challenges only the charge under section 304 (ii) of ipc. actually, it would be a.....
Judgment:

CRR No.1461/2009 Criminal Revision No.1461/2009 22.3.2013 Shri T.S.Ruprah, Senior Advocate along with Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.

Heard on admission.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in S.T.No.94/2009, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 304 (II).286 of IPC and section 5/9 of Explosive Substance Act were framed against the applicant.

The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the applicant kept some explosives in his house situated at village Inpun.

Due to explosion, one Mamta Bai had expired.

The learned Senior Advocate of the applicant submits that the applicant challenges only the charge under section 304 (II) of IPC.

Actually, it would be a negligence of the applicant and therefore, charge of offence under section 304-A of IPC is required to be framed.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent CRR No.1461/2009 that the applicant did not possess any licence to keep the explosives in that room.

Similarly, if a licence holder keeps such explosives in a bulk in that room then, it was to be examined by the applicant whether he has licence to keep such explosives in that room in such a bulk quantity or not.

Under such circumstances, the overt-act of the applicant falls within the purview of section 300 (4) of IPC that his act was imminently dangerous that he should knot that in all probability, a death would be caused.

Under such circumstances, a charge under section 304 (II) shall be framed.

There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa.

Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted.

Hence, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

Interim stay granted vide order dated 9.9.2009 is hereby vacated.

A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and to proceed with the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //