The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against Petitioner herein in S.C. No 317 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Wanaparthy, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the fi/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUIUAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Sole Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6964 oF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 52g of Bharatiya Nagarik Sirraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNSS 2023,) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.317 of 2019, on the file of the principal Diskict and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthv. 2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No..l in the Sessions Case registered r'or the offences punishable under Sections 3,4 and 5 of Explosive Siubstances Act, '1908 and Section 2g6 of the lndian penal Code,'1860 3. Hearj [Vlr.K.Krran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithende' Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor, representingt the respondenVstate. 4. The prosecution's case, in brief , is as follows: On 2l st February 2017, at aplrroximately 4:30 pM, acting on credible information regarding the illegal possession of explosive substances, the complainant, accompanle J by police personnel, conducted a surprise inspection of the premises of M/s Neelam Goud Builders and Developers. During the search, the authorities discovered a substantial quantity of explosive materials stc,red improperly in a room, including (a) 2BO gelatin sticks of the brand "ldeal Power 90, (b) 36 busters, (c) 162 detonators, (d) 3 2 -- N1R,] aat p 5994 2015 meggar box batteries, (d) 180 kilograms of ammonium nitrate, and (e) 3 units of ldeal cord fuse. These explosives were kept without any precautionary measures, thereby posing a serious risk to human life and public safety. The seizure of these items was conducted in the presence of independent mediators. Subsequent investigation revealed that the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as Accused No.1 , is the proprietor of the aforementioned establishment. Accordingly, a police report was filed' and a case was registered under Crime No. 34 of 2017.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner lawfully obtained leasehold right over the subject land for the purpose of conducting quarrying operations for stone, metal, and gravel. The said lease was granted by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Wanaparthy, and is valid until 07.05.2033. The explosives in question were stored at the premises solely for legitimate use in connection with the petitioner's authorized quarrying activities. Further submits that, previously, the petitioner filed a discharge petition before the trial court, which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition This Hon'ble Court, in Criminal Revision Case No. 556 of 2023, quashed all charges framed against the petitioner except the one under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 1908. Adc itionally pteaded that this court had declined to discharge the petitioner under this section on the observation that the petitioner allegedly li:cked a varid ricence to conduct business rnvorving exprosives and that tre operations were being run under the name of one pulla Reddy anc such observation is factually rncorrect, hence present petition has been liled seeking consideration of the available materjal on record and for quershment of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 6. The learned Additionar pubric prosecutor submits that this court in a prior petition, had already examined all relevant merits and material facts and after due consideration rendered the order that Section 5 of the Explosive llubstances Act would sustain. As such, revisiting the very same issue s would, in effect, amount to rnvoking the Court,s review or appellate jr-risdiction, which is impermissibre in the present context. rt is further submitted that the petitioner retains the riberty to adduce a relevant materiars and evidence during the course of kral, where factuar determinations can be appropriately made based on the evidentiary record- Ther-efore, it is contended that the present petition lacks merit and is not maintirinable rn law and prays for the dismissal of the petition. 7 . I havr> perused the materials on record.

8. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No..1 in the present case. It is not in disprrte that the explosives mentioned in the complaint were recovered frcm the premises belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner contends thirt thrs Hon'bre court, whire considering the criminar revisron 4 CRLP 6994 2025 case filed against the dismissal of the discharge petition, based its rejection on the sole ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite licence. 9. However, a careful reading of the order passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 556 of 2023 reveals that the Court specifically observed that "lhe petitioner does nof possess any licence in carrying out the buslness by blasting rocks. " While the petitioner does hold a valid quarrying lease, the order underscores that mere possession of a quarry licence does not automatically authorize the use of explosives for blasting purposes. '10. lmportantly, the lease agreement cited by the petitioner does not contain any clause permitting the extraction of stone, metal, and gravel by means of blasting using explosives Furthermore, even the mere possession of explosives requires a separate and specific licence under the applicable statutory framework, such a licence is conspicuously absent in the name of petitioner in the present case

11. lt is well settled that possession and use of explosive substances in quarrying operations cannot be presumed to be lawful solely on the basis of a general quarry lease. ln the absence of a valid and specific licence authorizing either the possession or use of explosives, such possession cannot be deemed lawful or held to be for a lawful object under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 5 NIR,] CRLP 699.1 2025

12. ln ligtrt of the above circumstances, and considerin g thal a prima facle case ir; clearly made out against the petitioner/Accused No.1, the conclusrons reached by this Court in the earlier revision proceedings are found to be sound and well-reasoned. This Court, therefore, finds no justifiable or tenable grounds to deviate from the conclusions already arrived at in the said revision case.

13. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is liable to be and is accordingly, dism issed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand c\osed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR \ t SECTION OFFICER To, The Princip al District and Sessions Judge at Wanaparthy The Statioi House Officer, Police Station, Pebbair, Wanaparthy Dist Two CCs kr the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to SRI KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] Two CD CtrPies 1 2 J 4 5 1'pk/psl HIGH CCIURT DATED: 11310612025 /, //_/ \' !li r, .,-. -' , o, 19 sEP 206 ', , :1. l.l' .9 '\, 'itli -r tl -_ it( ,: .-/ ORDER CRLP.No.6964 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION lS DISMISSED .N coPFJa V, I i,kg'