ORDER
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
1. Petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 is the accused in crime No. 282/2009 and petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 273/2010 is the accused in crime No. 283/2009 of Nattukal police station registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. They are Annexure-I F.I.R. shows that petitioners were arrested based on the confession statement of Hamsa, S/o. Kunhayamu, who is the accused in crime No. 280/2009 of Nattukal police station, registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. The confession statement is to the effect that the said accused purchased explosives from the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2003 during March 2007 and if he is taken to the place, he will show the shop and the person who sold it and the said Hamsa was taken to the shop of petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 on 12.12.2009 at 2 p.m. and shown the petitioner and he was arrested and case was registered under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. Annexure-I F.I.R. in Crl.M.C. No. 273/2010 shows that based on the confession statement of the very same Hamsa to the effect that he purchased explosives from a shop during May 2008 and if he is taken to the place, he will show the shop and the person who sold it, Hamsa was taken to the shop of the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 273/2010, on 12.12.2009 at about 2 p.m. and he had shown the petitioner and petitioner was arrested. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R.s as against them contending that even on the allegations raised in the F.I.R.s, offence is not made out and therefore, the F.I.R.s are to be quashed.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Section 9B(1)(b) of Explosives Act provides that whoever, in contravention of rules made under Section 5 or of the conditions of the license granted under the said rules possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosive, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both. Annexure-I F.I.R.s show that cases were registered against the petitioners based only on the confession statements made by another accused in another case, to the effect that he had purchased explosives from the petitioners during 2007 and 2008. But no explosive was seized from the said accused Hamsa. Apart from the allegation that petitioners has violated conditions of the license there is no supporting material. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Explosives Act provides that Central Government may make rules to regulate or prohibit except and in accordance with the conditions of a license granted as provided by those rules, manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import and export of explosive, or any specified class of explosives. Part V of the Explosives Rules, 1983, provides for sale of explosives. Under Rule 139, no person shall sell explosives from any premises other than those licensed under these rules. Under Rule 141, no person shall sell any explosive to any person who is not authorized to possess such explosives under these rules and no person shall sell, deliver or cause to be delivered to any person any explosive that has deteriorated or is defective. Even if, it is taken that under Sub-rule (1) there is a restriction of sale of explosives by a licensee and a licensee cannot sell explosive to any person who is not authorized to possess it, unless there is a specific case for the prosecution that petitioners have sold any particular explosive to Hamsa and he was not authorized to possess the same, petitioners cannot be prosecuted so long as they are having licenses as provided under Rule 139 of Explosive Rules. Annexure-II in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 is the license issued to the said petitioner which shall remain in force till 31.3.2005, which was subsequently extended till 31.3.2011. Therefore, petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 is holding a license in Form No. 24, as provided under the Explosive Rules, till 31.3.2011 and that license was issued on 31.3.2005. Conditions of the license does not provide that any of the explosives shall not be sold to a person, who is not having a license to possess them. Similarly, Annexure-II in Crl.M.C. No. 273/2010 shows that petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 273/2010 is having a license which was originally issued for the period ending on 31.3.2006 and subsequently renewed upto 31.3.2010. In such circumstances, both the petitioners were having a license to sell explosives from the licensed premises during 2007 and 2008. Annexure-I F.I.R. also shows that they were arrested from the said licensed premises. When F.I.R.s do not even show what category of explosive was allegedly sold by the petitioners to said Hamsa and when no explosive was seized from the said Hamsa and the only allegation is that said Hamsa made a confession statement that he purchased explosives from the shop of the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 272/2010 during March 2007 and from the shop of the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 273/2010 during May 2008 and there is no allegation that said Hamsa was not authorised to possess those explosives and there is no material in support of such sale or purchase petitioners cannot be prosecuted under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the court and it is to be quashed.
Petitions are allowed. Crime Nos. 282/2009 and 283/2009 of Nattukal police station are quashed.