Explosive Substances Act, 1908

 

 

Explosive Substances Act, 1908

 

The seizure list witnesses P. W s. 4 and 7 deposed that the alamats being remnants of the exploded bomb were collected when the informant was at the hospital. However, it has been alleged by other P. Ws. that the said alamats were handed over to the Investigating Officer by the informant himself thus causing a serious doubt on this aspect of the prosecution case.

Halim Sheikh & Anr Vs. The State 13 BLT (HCD)-102

Sections 2 and 4(b)

Alleged bombs were not examined by the chemical expert. So it cannot be said that the substance which was recovered from the possession of the accused appellant was the explosive substance.

Jewel Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD)-310

Section-3

It appears that though the local witnesses deposed that appellant Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by using an explosive substance but this has not been supported by the evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Shah Md. Akhtaruzzaman. He has not stated that injury No. 2 was caused by any explosive substance. He stated that the injury could be caused probably by a chemical substance. From his evidence it cannot be found that P.W. 1 sustained injury by an explosive substance. The Investigating Officer also failed to get the injury and the shirt of P.W. 1 examined by an expert to find out whether P.W. 1 sustained injury by explosive sub-stance. Unless that is proved it cannot be found that appellant No. 2 Mustafizur Rahman) alias Reza caused injury on the person of PW 1 by any explosive substance.

Aminul Islam @ Ranga & Ors. Vs. The State 8 BLT(AD)-129

Sections-3

From the evidence of the doctor it is not possible to know whether chemical substance was at all present ill the injuries allegedly caused by a bomb. Not only that the explosive substance must be of such extent and quantitned that is likely to endanger a person or property. In the present case no such test was made to ascertain that fact and without such test in cannot be said with certainty that the alleged occurrence comes within the mischief Section 3 of the said Act.

Halim Sheikh & Anr Vs. The State 13 BLT (HCD) 102

Sections 3 & 4

In the instant case the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against Pear Hossain, son of Abdul Mannan of village Dakhin Islampur, but it appears from the jExt-5 that doctor made treatment to Pear Hossain, son of Akkas Ali of village Juglir Hat, but he has not been made an accused. It is well-proved that accused appellant pear Hossain son of Abul Mannan and the injured person pear Hossain son of Akkas Ali is not sune person as such the investigating officer sailed to identity the actual person, who leceived injuries by the bomb blasting- The judgment and order of conviction is hereby act aside.

Pear Hossain vs The State 13 BLT (HCD)-98

Section-4

Possession and control

It has been set at rest by this court and also by our Appellate Division that under Arms Act it must be shown that the accused is in the actual  possession  and  not  in the Constructive possession of the particular person charged i.e. actual and physical possession and control and not merely a possession or control by construction of law. It is not a liability to be found in a merely constructive  or  presumed  possession or control which the  law might for other purpose import into the facts of the case. It s incumbent upon the prosecution to give good  evidence  that  such  arms  are in inclusive possession and control of the particular member of the party who is ought to be charged with his possession, but the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of alleged live bombs from the custody of the apprehended accused namely Al-Amin nor there is any iota of evidence to prove that the accused petitioner Shahidul ever kept the said bombs in the control and possession of the accused AI-Amin keeping his joint ownership/control/ possession thereto. So the conviction and sentence passed against the accused petitioner cannot be sustained, and the same is quashed.

Shahidul Vs. The State 7 BLT (HCD)-142

Section -4(b)

The words "Possession and Control"

The concept of possession under the Penal Law or any other law is not necessarily the same as the concept of "possession" under The Act of 1908 or The Arms Act, 1878. Concept of "possession" under The Act of 1908 or The Act of 1878 connotes an element of consciousness in the person charged with the offence -Control in section 4(b) means that the accused must have such power over explosive substances that he can direct its custody, production, use or disposal in some mariner. "Control" in context means power or ability to regulate the keeping or possession or use to endanger life and cause serious injury to a person or property -Possession or control essential to constitute an offence under section 4(b), thus, must be "conscious possession" and "effective control" over explosive substances to endanger life or to cause serious injury to person or property.

Muhibur Rahman Manik & Anr Vs. The State 15 BLT (HCD)-279

Experts opinion—case of rape

It appears from the deposition of P.W. 17 that the post mortem was conducted by a Board of 3 (three) medical officers of which he was the Chairman. The concerned doctors in the Board ought to have given their utmost attention as experts on the physical and pathological condition of each parts of the body and to give their considered medical opinion in respect of any abnormality in the concerned limbs with possible explanation for such abnormality. An omnibus statement that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries mentioned above, are not enough and not expected from the medical persons who are presumed to be experts. They ought to be specific in their findings and to the point in indicating the abnormalities found in each part of body. In this case, their own report ought to have put them on alert that this might be a case of rape, as such, necessary further investigation ought to have been done by them. But unfortunately, the board did not even consider it necessary to examine the discharge from vagina by a chemical examiner. This only highlights their inefficiency and indifference to their professional work.

The State Vs. Md. Joynal Abedin & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-376.

Explosive Substances Act, 1908

 

Explosive Substances Act

[VI of 1908]

 

Section 5—To constitute offence under the aforesaid sections of law
possession and control must mean conscious possession and actual control with
necessary mens rea.

When incriminating articles involving offences under section
19(f) of the Arms Act and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act are
recovered from a place in the occupation or possession of more than one person
and it is not possible to fix the liability of any particular individual, the
head of the family cannot be held liable for the offences. Kashem alias Md Abul Kashem vs State 47 DLR 438.

 

Explosive Substances Act, 1908


Explosive Substances Act [VI of 1908]


Section 3—

The
allegation made against the appellant is one of causing hurt by ram dao which
definitely does not come within the mischief of Explosive Substances Act and
the allegation of explosion of bombs has been made in lump but the appellants
surrendered before the CMM, Khulna immediately after filing the FIR and he
never misused the privilege of bail and as such there should not be any
discrimination in granting bail to appellant when other accused persons are
enjoying the privilege of bail.

Yonus
Member vs State, 1 BLC 451.


Section 3—

Although
the local witnesses deposed that appellant Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by
using an explosive substance but the doctor opined that the injury was caused
by a chemical substance when the investigating officer failed to get the injury
and the shirt of PW 1 examined by an expert to find out whether PW 1 sustained
inury by explosive substance it cannot be said that it is proved that
Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by explosive substance.

Aminul
Islam alias Ranga and others vs State 5 BLC (AD) 179.


Section 4—

As
the explosive substance was not tested by chemical expert and the seizure list
witness even did not know the contents of the polythene bag the alleged
recovery from the appellants was not proved and the conviction was set aside.

Mohammad
Ali and another vs State 1 BLC 164.


Section 4—

PW
1, the informant, is the sole witness not corroborated by any other independent
witness on the point of seizure and recovery of bomb from the convict and such
testimony cannot be relied on in the absence of corroboration by independent
and unimpeachable evidence as the informant is interested in the result of the
case and as such he is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Harun
Bepari (Md) vs State 5 BLC 501.