Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Prakash D. Naik, J.
Manohar Singh Dasauni - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 483 of 2023 (Filing)
Decided On : 28-08-2023
ARMS ACT - POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION - Sections 3, 25, 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 - The court discussed the essential elements of 'conscious possession' required under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, emphasizing that mere possession without knowledge does not constitute an offense. The court highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner had conscious possession of the live ammunition found in his bag, as it was left there inadvertently by another individual. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence indicating the petitioner's awareness of the ammunition, leading to the conclusion that he should be discharged from the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act after two live .22 calibre cartridges were found in his baggage at Dabolim airport without a valid license. The petitioner claimed the ammunition belonged to Deepak Agarwal, who had borrowed his bag and inadvertently left the cartridges inside.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not establish that the petitioner had conscious possession of the ammunition. The forensic report confirmed the cartridges were live, but there was no evidence that the petitioner was aware of their presence in his bag. The court noted that the petitioner, being a police officer, was entitled to carry ammunition in an official capacity and that only two cartridges were found without any firearm.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had conscious possession of the live ammunition found in his bag, and whether the mere possession of the cartridges constituted an offense under the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that 'conscious possession' is a necessary element for establishing guilt under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. It emphasized that mere possession without knowledge does not amount to an offense, and the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge or control over the ammunition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the orders of the lower courts, and discharged the petitioner from the criminal case, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to frame charges against him.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The petitioner is charged for the offence under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25 of the Arms Act.
2. The proceedings are pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'A' Court, Vasco-da-Gama vide Criminal Case No.382/AOA/2020/A.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 25/2/2019 the petitioner was to travel from Dabolim airport, Goa to Delhi by Air Asia flight. During security check two live standard ammunition of .22 calibre cartridges were found in his baggage without valid documents/licence to carry the same. FIR No.3/2019 was registered with Dabolim Airport Police Station for offence under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25 of Arms Act. Applicant was arrested and granted bail. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The Dabolim Airport Police Station wrote letter to Station House Officer, Cyber Police Station, Dehradun, Uttarakhand dtd. 15/3/2019 and requested to provide information whether any criminal case is registered against the applicant. The Cyber Police Station, Uttarakhand forwarded reply dtd. 28/3/2019 stating that no case is registered against petitioner or his family members. Sealed packet containing two .22 calibre live ammunition, found in possession of accused were sent to the Director, Goa State Forensic Laboratory, Ballistic Division, Goa for examination. Examination was sought, whether the article is ammunition or not and if yes, whether it comes under the purview of Arms Act or otherwise. Whether the article is live ammunition or not and the calibre of the ammunition. The type of weapon with which the questioned article can be fired. The Report dtd. 30/5/2019 was forwarded by Forensic Science Laboratory opining that, the exhibits are standard ammunition of .22 calibre and it comes under purview of Indian Arms Act. The ammunition .22 cartridges were loaded and successfully test fired through .22 calibre regular rile. The ammunition can be fired through standard .22 calibre rifle. During investigation statement of Deepak Agarwal was recorded. Sanction under Sec. 39 of Arms Act was granted. Chargesheet was filed. Documents were collected. On completing investigation, chargesheet was filed.
4. The petitioner preferred an application for discharge before the trial Court. The application was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao vide order dtd. 3/11/2022 on the ground that at this stage the Court cannot hold that the statement of one Deepak Agarwal is true or that the case of the prosecution is true. However, prima facie, there is case that the accused was in possession of live ammunition. The Goa Forensic Science Laboratory has submitted report which indicate that it is standard ammunition. Hence, the offences under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 are made out.
5. The order passed by the trial Court was challenged by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, South Goa, Margao by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.12/2023. Vide order dtd. 5/5/2023 the revision application was dismissed.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have committed error in rejecting the applications preferred by the petitioner. On perusal of the material on record it is clear that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Though the FIR alleges that accused was found carrying two live standard ammunition of .22 calibre cartridges in his baggage without any valid licence to carry the same, statement of Deepak Agarwal shows that the same was belonging to him and he has valid documents, licence for the same and the cartridges were left in the handbag due to oversight when Mr Agarwal had borrowed and used the said bag from the petitioner. The statement of Deepak Agarwal shows that he had purchased 200 live ammunition which he was firing during festivals. He had borrowed handbag of the petitioner for business trip and at that time he was carrying his licenced gun along with ammunition for his safety. Report from the Cyber Crime Police Statio
AI
The essential requirement for an offense under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act is 'conscious possession' of the ammunition, which must be proven by the prosecution; mere possession without knowledg....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conscious possession and the need for the accused to establish lack of awareness or inadvertent possession to avoid trial in ....
Possession of ammunition under Section 25 of the Arms Act requires conscious possession, and a single live cartridge without a firearm may not constitute an offense if the possession is not conscious....
Where admitted allegations in final report do not make out an offence, continuance of prosecution against accused amounts to abuse of process of court and inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to qu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'possession' under the Arms Act must have the element of consciousness or knowledge, and even if the factum of physical possession is made out....
Conscious possession is required for prosecution under the Arms Act; mere recovery of a cartridge without knowledge does not establish a violation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
