1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an 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 are now concerned are entirely crackers spoken of in the evidence as lavangi crackers or patakhas, that is to say, clove-shaped crackers. They are strings of very small sticks 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 3 that nothing in the rules shall apply to the possession of toy fire-works 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 question have no practical explosive effect. They may, however, be fire-works intended to produce a pyrotechnic effect, if that term is used in its broadest possible sense, although the light produced from the explosion of one of these crackers is momentary. But assuming for the purpose of argument without deciding that they might be treated as fire-works falling within Rule 5, Clause 7, of the statutory definition, we think that they should be treated as toy fire-works within the Rule just mentioned. As such they will be exempt from Rule 35 imposing the necessity of a license. We, therefore, think that the learned Magistrate came to the right conclusion. We may observe that there is no technical evidence whatever as to these fire-works, and the only knowledge of their effect which we have been able to obtain has been from the ignition of one of them in Court during the progress of the arguments. We dismiss the appeal.