Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property
Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 deals with punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property. Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by— (a) any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment for life, or with ri The Act came into force on 08 Jun 1908.
Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by—
(a) any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than (ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) any special category explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with death, or rigorous imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 3, The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Act 6 of 1908).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Offense of causing explosion likely to endanger life or property
-
Sheikh Juman Etc vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Members of an unlawful assembly share criminal liability for deaths caused by other members in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, even if they did not directly perpetrate the killing, provided they actively participated in the crime through facilitating acts such as preventing rescue efforts or demonstrating force with weapons, and this liability can be established through reliable eye-witness testimony corroborated by circumstantial evidence, and mere presence at the scene with knowledge of the common object is sufficient when combined with active facilitation.
On this section: Unlawful possession and use of explosive substances - Applied to convict appellants for possession and use of bombs in committing the murders
-
Senthilkumar vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA, if properly recorded following mandatory procedural safeguards, voluntarily made by the accused, and found by the court to be truthful, is sufficient to form the basis of conviction. Such conviction may be based on the confession alone without corroboration if the court is satisfied of its probative value. However, retraction of such confession is not automatically fatal if the court, after examining the circumstances, finds the original confession was voluntary and true and the retraction is merely an afterthought. Corroboration, while generally required as a matter of caution, is not always mandatory and depends on facts of the case. For use of confessional statement of one co-accused against another co-accused, general corroboration is required unless the court is satisfied the confession has high probative value. To establish conspiracy under Section 120(B) IPC in context of TADA offences, it is essential to prove either actual participation in the conspiracy or prior knowledge of the planned offence; mere arrangement for hospitality or contact with conspirators without prior knowledge is insufficient. Hostile witness testimony need not be completely rejected; that portion which is corroborated by other evidence on record may be relied upon. For criminal conviction in terrorist cases, the standard of proof remains 'beyond reasonable doubt', and lack of corroboration on material facts connecting an accused to the conspiracy may warrant acquittal despite other evidence.
On this section: Applied for unauthorized possession of gelatin sticks, detonators, and materials used in manufacturing explosive devices
-
Deepak Khinchi vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When mandatory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is not obtained at the outset and the accused is discharged for that reason, the prosecution must be quashed. However, it is open to the prosecution to initiate fresh prosecution after obtaining valid sanction from the competent authority (District Magistrate post-amendment). A delay in obtaining such sanction, even of several years, does not bar subsequent prosecution if: (a) the sanctioning authority is competent; (b) sanction was never refused by the competent authority; (c) the offence is grave involving significant loss of life and property; and (d) the accused is afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The trial court may accept such retrospectively obtained sanction and proceed with trial, balancing the rights of the accused against the rights of victims and the administration of justice.
On this section: Substantive offence provisions under which the appellant was charged. The Court affirmed that trial should proceed under these sections once valid sanction was obtained.
-
Arsh @ Mohammad Kaif Khan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a serious case (involving communal violence and explosive substances) has already spent considerable time in pre-trial custody (approximately 22 months), and the trial is still ongoing with no imminent conclusion, continued judicial custody ceases to serve any legitimate purpose. Bail may be granted with conditions ensuring regular court appearance and prohibition of activities disrupting communal harmony, striking a balance between individual liberty and public order. The gravity of charges alone does not justify indefinite pre-trial detention if the detention itself is no longer proportionate to trial progress and the period already spent.
On this section: Serious charge added in chargesheet alleging possession and use of explosive substances
-
Feroz Ahmad Zargar vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal court does not have inherent jurisdiction to recall or review its own final orders. Once a court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it cannot alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors as provided in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a party is aggrieved by a trial court order, the proper remedy is to challenge it before a superior forum (High Court), not to seek recall from the trial court itself. The fact that a judgment relied upon by the trial court has been stayed by a higher court does not confer upon the trial court the power to review its own orders.
On this section: Petitioner No. 6 was charged with offences related to explosive substances.
-
Jangala Koteswara Rao at Koti vs The State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed when the trial has already concluded and the matter is posted for judgment before the trial court, as the petition no longer serves any practical purpose at that stage of proceedings.
On this section: Charges related to possession and use of explosive substances
-
Jangala Koteswara Rao at Koti vs The State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal petition for quashing proceedings is filed in the High Court but the trial court has already substantially progressed with examination of prosecution witnesses, the High Court may close the criminal petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to participate in the ongoing trial rather than entertaining the petition for quashing, as the trial court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the charges.
On this section: Charges related to possession and use of explosive substances
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 3
What have the courts held on Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act?
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan (09 May 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offense of causing explosion likely to endanger life or property. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Explosive Substances Act 3, section 3 Explosive Substances Act, section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. People searching for it also type explosive substance act 3 4 5 and explosive substances act 1883 section 3. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan (09 May 2014).
When did Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act come into force?
Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, cited as Explosive Substances Act 3, came into force on 08 Jun 1908, having been enacted on 08 Jun 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.