Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 29Ind.Cas.513
..... the entire evidence, it is plain that the conspiracy charged against dinesh cannot be supported.25. we have next to consider the charge under section 4 (b) of the explosive substances act, 1908, against chandra sekhar, sarada and dinesh, against whom, as we have just found, the conspiracy charge has failed. it is obvious ..... been endorsed for execution, gave the first information, in which it was alleged that the four persons arrested had committed of ences under sections 4 and 5 of the explosive substances act, 1908. on the 26th november, the district magistrate transferred the case for disposal to mr veirh. on the 6th december, one kalipada ..... illegal. the cases reviewed are clearly distinguishable and do not support the contention that when the illegal act contemplated by section 120a, indian penal code, is the possession of explosive substunces under section 4 (b) of the explosive substances act, 1908, it is essential to specify in the charge the particular substance which the accused have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1916Bom64(1); 37Ind.Cas.491
..... hardly longer than a clove, each of which, when ignited, emits a small report. the governor-general-in-council has issued rules under the explosives act, under section 35 of which an explosive shall not be possessed except under and in accordance with the conditions of the license granted under the rules. it is provided, however, by rule ..... order of the first class magistrate of bail-hongal, who discharged the accused after investigation of a charge of possessing 2,300 lbs of crackers under the indian explosives act, whereas his license only entitled him to possess 200 lbs. the accused imported chinese crackers of various kinds, and the 2,300 lbs with which we ..... such as paper caps for toy pistols. the first question we have to determine is whether the clove-crackers in question are explosives. the definition of 'explosives' requires that they should be either for a practical explosive effect or be used to give a pyrotechnic effect. there can be no question, we think, that the crackers in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1947Mad451; (1947)2MLJ102
..... inspected the site where the gun powder was stored. the taluk magistrate found that only 30 lbs. were in store at the place mentioned in the licence under the indian explosive act; but in the shop there were besides the s.b.b.l. gun 17/8 lbs. of gun powder. the taluk magistrate reported the matter to the authorities and ..... is admitted that there is no such sanction in the present case because the view upon which the prosecution has throughout acted is that section 21 of the arms act is applicable and not section 14 and for a prosecution under section 21 no such sanction is required. the question that falls to be decided in this case is whether when a licensee ..... possesses more gun powder than is mentioned in his gun licence, he commits an offence under section 14 or under section 21 of the indian arms act.4. section 14 runs thus:no person shall have in his possession or under his control any cannon or fire-arms or any ammunition or military stores .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1946Bom315; (1946)48BOMLR46
..... a servant in breach of the licence granted under the indian explosives act, and that the master was also liable even though he had no knowledge of the crime committed.8. it is true that none of these cages was under the ..... i.l.r (1926) 1 bom. 352: 29 bom. l.r. 153. that was also a case of infringement of the terms of a licence granted under the indian explosives act. there it was held by majority of the judges that the principle of english law enunciated in emperor v. jeevanji was applicable to the case of a crime committed by ..... , ammunition and military stores sold certain military stores without previously ascertaining that the buyer was legally authorised to possess the same, the licensee was liable to punishment under section 22 of the arms act, though the goods were not sold with his knowledge and consent. the leading cases of mullins v. collins (1874) l.r. 9 q.b. 292 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All17
..... , possession or sale of fire-works are granted under the explosives act of 1884 and not under the arms act. i am clearly of opinion that the conviction under section 19 (f), arms act, cannot be sustained.6. the magistrate suggests that if the conviction under section 19 (f), arms act, be set aside, the accused might be convicted under rule ..... 138 (6), explosives rules, of 1914. it is however at least ..... open to doubt whether the accused is guilty even of any offence under the explosives act or the rules made thereunder. it was held .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 48Ind.Cas.988
..... (2) that the license to import being for 10,000 lbs., he is not guilty of any offence.3. as regards the first point, section 4, clauses 1 and 2 of the indian explosives act, iv of 1584, are wide enough to include crackers and the only question is, whether the crackers in the possession of the accused fall under rule 3 ..... any evidence i can hold that the crackers. are toy fireworks, especially when he took the trouble of getting licenses for crackers on the footing that they fell under the explosives act. emperor v. rachapa gurappa hattarvat 37 ind. cas. 491 and emperor v. bansidhar 5 ind. cas. 911 referred to by the petitioner's vakil proceeded on the nature of ..... of the rules framed, which exclude toy fireworks from the operation of the act. the onus is on the accused to show that the fireworks in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1944)46BOMLR555
..... of materials, or in any manner whatsoever, procures, counsels, aids, abets, or is accessory to, the commission of any offence under the explosive substances act is punishable under section 6 of that act.9. the case for the prosecution is simple and clear. accused no. 2 ishwarlal placed orders with the appellant for a certain number of ..... one case the bomb exploded and caused some damage, while in the other two cases there was no explosion. the first was punishable under section 3 and the other two under section 4(a) of the explosive substances act, 1908. under section 234 (2)' offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of ..... be guilty and ishwarlal to be not guilty. the learned judge, agreeing with them, acquitted accused no. 2 ishwarlal and convicted the appellant under section 4(b) of the explosive substances act, 1908, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. in the months of november and december, 1942, bombs were thrown in different .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal65
..... . we hold therefore that he was in possession of the pistol without any license and thus clearly committed an offence under section 19-(f), arms act. as regards the charge against him under section 5 read with section s-a and section 5-b, explosives act, we think that while, as we have already said, purnananda was certainly in possession of these, shyam benode who, we find ..... , war against the king. they hold that the circumstances under which purnananda. had been found in possession of these things-were such as to warrant a conviction under section 5-a, explosive substances act. we mention purnananda or rather we single him out as for special mention, because he was one of the persons who were convicted on one of the secondary charges .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1932All18; 136Ind.Cas.91
..... office act (act 6 of 1898), under the explosive substances act, (act 6 of 1908) or the police act (act 5 of 1861) or under the registration act became also offences under the penal code. in these acts, the abetment of certain offences has been provided for as a substantive offence. we refer to section 59, excise act, to section 70, post office act, section 12, explosives act, section 6, explosive substances act, section 82, registration act and section 36, police act. if ..... therefore we read section 40 in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad266
..... there is lack of bona fides on the part of the government in resorting to the provisions of the act when the petitioner could have been, if the case for the government were true, prosecuted under section 5, explosive substances act, 1908 (act vi [6] of 1908). 10. after anxious consideration, i am of opinion that the view of ..... horwill j. on the two points is correct. i had occasion to consider the object of the provisions of the madras maintenance of the public order act, 1947, requiring the government ..... i also agree with horwill j. that the fact that the government had abandoned the intention of prosecuting the case initiated against the petitioner under the explosive substances act is undoubted proof that the government did not believe in the truth of the allegation now made. if the government were really serious in the charge .....
Tag this Judgment!