Lok Nath Prasad, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.1989 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1993 through which the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was maintained and confirmed.
2. The fact in short giving rise to this revision is that on 22.10.1978 at about 3 a.m. in the night the informant along with other police officials S.I. Tarni Prasad Yadav ASI Md. Mustafa were on patrolling duty and they were going towards Gohinbandh and had reached near Gohinbandh Railway Crossing they saw one person moving in suspicious circumstances with a bag in hand and seeing the police party he wanted to escape away. It has been alleged that after chase, that man was apprehended and from his possession about 500 grams of Gandhak like materials, 40 grams of potas like materials and two bundles of subtle, were found which were concealed in a bag and the informant suspected these articles to be explosive substance and as such seized and prepared the seizure list in present of the witnesses. Subsequently the seized articles were sent to the Deputy Controller of Explosive who was an Expert of Explosive materials and he examined the same and submitted a report and it was found that she seized articles bear explosive substances and on receipt of the report and after completing the investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution, of accused, charge-sheet was submitted in this case. Initially, after commitment, the case was tried by 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and in the court below, the petitioner-accused claimed himself innocent and denied any recovery of explosive substance from his possession. However, the trial court found petitioner guilty under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act as per the judgment dated 28.2.1983, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for 5 years. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad vide his judgment dated 10.8.1989 dismissed the appeal bearing No. Cr. Appeal 61/83 and affirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to the extent of 2 years R.I. under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal in Cr. A. No. 61 of 1983, this revision application had been preferred by the petitioner-accused. Admittedly the petitioner-accused had been prosecuted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. As on 20-KM978 while some police officials were on patrolling duty apprehended the petitioner in suspicious circumstances in the late hour of night with a bag which was containing about 500 Grams of Sulphur and some quantity of Potas etc. alongwith two bundles of threads meant for preparation of the Explosive substance and as such seizure was made in presence of the witnesses and a written report i.e. Exhibit 4 was submitted on the basis of which this case was instituted. From the evidence of PW 1 Md. Mustafa and that of PW 5 Tarni Prasad Yadav who were the police officers this fact is well proved that on 22.10.1978 at about 3 a.m. in the night while they were on patrolling duty they found this petitioner in suspicious condition and he wanted to escape and so he was apprehended and from his possession Explosive Substance were recovered and a seizure list was prepared i.e. Ext. 3. From the evidence of PW 5, this much is clear that the seized articles were sent to the expert i.e. the Controller of Explosive, Asansole, Ext. 6 is the report of the expert which indicates that an orange-red substance was found to be explosive mixture of chlorate of potassium and sulphide or arsen and according to the expert report, these are explosive substance and prohibited by the Government of India. So this fact is well proved that the petitioner was apprehended along with explosive substance in the alleged night and he kept the same for causing injury to property and there was reasonable suspicion that the possession in such circumstance was for unlawful object and as such the court below was perfectly justified in convincing and sentencing the petitioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
4. The only point urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that from the evidence of PW 1 and PW 5, this much can be said that the Explosive Substance was not sealed and it was sent to the expert without any proper sealing in a cover and there is chance that some other articles might have been sent to the expert but from the report of the expert i.e. Ext. 6 it can be said that the seized articles was sent by special messenger and practically no suggestion was given to PW 5 or even PW 1 that the seized articles was tampered by the police offices or some different articles were sent to the expert for chemical examination. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that the police officers got any animate as against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the contention of the learned lawyer for the petitioner that there was tampering with the seized articles and actually the seized articles were not sent for examination.
5. It also appears from the record and the exhibit 2 that the prosecution as against the petitioner was launched after obtaining proper sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act and the sanction was accorded by the District Magistrate who had also mentioned in Ext. 2 that there is also delegation of power to him to accord necessary sanction. Thus t he prosecution of the petitioner was also made after obtaining necessary sanction as required under the Act.
6. So, considering the entire evidence and submissions of the learned lawyer for the petitioner, it can be said that practically there is no 'illegality or irregularity in the order of conviction recorded by the trial court or even by the first appellate court. Regarding sentence, the appellant court has taken a reasonable view and modify the sentence of the petitioner to the extent of only two years R.I. under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and as such it does not require any interference.
7. fn the result, there is no merit in this revision and so it is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within two months from today for undergoing the sentence as awarded by the appellate court, failing which the court below will take necessary steps for apprehension of the petitioner. The bail bond of the petitioner is hereby cancelled.