KERALA HIGH COURT
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
Shantanu Yadav Rao Hire – Petitioner
versus
State of Kerala Rep. by
Public Prosecutor and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.M.C.No.922 of 2023
Decided on 28.3.2023
Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 2(b) and 25(1B)(a) – Seizure of live cartridge from bag of a passenger during security check at Airport without seizure of any corresponding fire-arm – Petitioner is a businessman from Maharashtra – He possesses a license to possess arms within his State – Possession of a fire-arm under Arms Act must have element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession on the person charged with such offence – Even if he has no actual physical possession, if he nonetheless has power or control over the weapon, his possession will amount to a conscious possession, even if actual possession is with a third party – Though petitioner’s bag contained a single live cartridge which was recovered during security check at airport, a corresponding fire-arm was not recovered – Absence of a fire-arm in any of bags of petitioner indicates that there was no conscious possession of live cartridge – 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 quash proceedings – Criminal case quashed. (Paras 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12)
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed.
ORDER
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.—Would a live cartridge seized from the bag of a passenger during the security check at the airport without seizure of any corresponding fire-arm amount to an offence under the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) arises for determination in this case.
2. Petitioner is a businessman from Maharashtra. He possesses a license to possess arms within his State. His daughter is a Commandant Pilot, serving in Air India stationed at Kannur in Kerala. On 04.04.2019, while waiting to board the flight from Kannur Airport to return to his home State after spending time with his daughter, his baggage, when subjected to screening was detected with a live cartridge of 0.32 calibre. Though petitioner claimed ignorance of the live cartridge and how it came to be in his bag, an FIR was registered as Crime No.6 of 2019 of Airport Police Station, Mattannur, alleging offences punishable under sections 3 and 25(1B)(a) of the Act. After the final report was filed, the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Mattannur, took cognizance of the offence as C.C. No.236 of 2021.
3. Petitioner alleges that he has an unblemished track record and has never been involved in any criminal case in his entire life, and is also holding an arms licence valid within the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner contends that he was not in conscious possession of the ammunition for attracting the offence under section 25 of the Act. It was also contended that a single live cartridge without a corresponding fire-arm is a minor ammunition which is protected under clause (d) of section 45 of the Act, and hence an offence is not at all made out. Petitioner also contended that even if it is assumed that there was any recovery of a live cartridge, the same was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, and it must have remained in the bag, inadvertently.
4. I have heard Sri. Asif Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vipin Narayanan learned Public Prosecutor.
5. For the purpose of reference, Section 2(b) and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Act are extracted below:—
“2. Definitions and interpretation.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) xxx
(b) “ammunition” means ammunition for any fire-arm, and includes,—
(i) rockets, bombs, grenades, shells and other missiles,
(ii) articles designed for torpedo service and submarine mining,
(iii) other articles containing, or designed or adapted to contain, explosive, fulminating or fissionable material or noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, whether capable of use with fire-arms or not,
(iv) charges for fire-arms and accessories for such charges,
(v) fuses and friction tubes,
(vi) parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, ammunition, and
(vii) such ingredients of ammunition as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.”
“25. Punishment for certain offences.—
(1B) Whoever—
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or
......(other sub-clauses omitted as not relevant) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than two years.
(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection
(1B) whoever commits an offence punishable under that sub-section in any disturbed area shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this subsection, disturbed area means any area declared to be a disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public order, and inc
SupremeToday
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....
A person is not liable under Section 25 of the Arms Act if not consciously in possession of ammunition, without any firearm or threat present.
Possession of ammunition under the Arms Act requires consciousness or knowledge; inadvertent packing does not constitute an offense.
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....
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....
The judgment established that possession under the Indian Arms Act must be conscious possession with the requisite mental element, and the absence of recovery of any weapon or firearm supported the p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.