Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances
Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 deals with punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances. Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a l The Act came into force on 08 Jun 1908.
Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punished,—
(a) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) in the case of any special category explosive substance, with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.]
Section 5, 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 attempting to cause explosion or making preparation therefor
-
Hridya Nandan Singh Yadav v. State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2014-04-02 DATE VERIFIED (Dharnidhar Jha J.). Quashes convictions under Explosive Substances Act s.5: hand-grenade recovery unproved without expert analysis under s.2 definition, and District Magistrate consent under s.7 was a cyclostyled non-application of mind (no consent in substance). Also holds Arms Act s.26(3) charge misframed. Map Explosive Substances 5.
On this section: s.5 making/possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances — needs expert proof items are explosives and real DM consent under s.7.
-
L. Deben Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cognizance order taken without prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC for an offence allegedly committed by a public servant in discharge of official duty is void ab initio and non-existent in law from its very inception. Consequently, when such void cognizance is set aside and the case is remanded for de novo committal process with proper compliance of legal requirements including obtaining prosecution sanction, the subsequent cognizance taken by the Sessions Judge after committal does not constitute double cognizance but is the first valid cognizance in the eyes of law. Therefore, the Sessions Judge's cognizance order dated 18.10.2019 is legally valid and does not violate the principle that cognizance can be taken only once.
On this section: Cognizance was taken under this section against Accused Nos. 2 to 8.
-
L. Deben Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cognizance order taken by a court against a public servant for an offence allegedly committed during discharge of official duty without prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC is void ab initio and non-existent in the eye of law from its very inception. Consequently, when such void cognizance is set aside and the case is remanded for de novo committal process after obtaining the mandatory prosecution sanction, the subsequent cognizance taken by the competent court after proper committal does not constitute double cognizance but is the first and only valid cognizance. The principle that cognizance can be taken only once applies within the framework of valid legal proceedings, and a void cognizance order is not counted as a valid cognizance for this purpose.
On this section: Offence related to possession and use of explosive substances; charge against accused persons
-
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 269 CrPC applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders directing production of an accused. The provision is designed to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to confer a right on prisoners to avoid production in other jurisdictions. An accused facing trial in multiple courts cannot use one pending trial as an excuse to avoid appearing in other cases, as this would delay justice in other matters and prevent speedy disposal of cases. The CrPC must be interpreted pragmatically to ensure meaningful implementation and not as a procedure that creates impediments to criminal proceedings.
On this section: Petitioner was charged under this section, indicating involvement with 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 5
What have the courts held on Section 5 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 attempting to cause explosion or making preparation therefor. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 5 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 5, section 5 Explosive Substances Act, section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. People searching for it also type explosive substance act section 5 and 6 and explosive substance act 4 5. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 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 5 of the Explosive Substances Act come into force?
Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, cited as Explosive Substances Act 5, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.