SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 2065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

JASWINDER SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. - Respondents
CRL.M.C. 4207/2014 & Crl.M.A.No.14518/2014
Decided on : 11.08.2015

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Maninder Singh, Adv. with Ms. Aekta Vats, Mr. Jaskaran Sibia, Mr. Dinhar Takiar, Mr. Prateek Sisodia, Adv.
Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State along with SI Rajiv Gulati, PS IGI Airport in person

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conscious possession under Section 25 of the Arms Act, emphasizing the mental element involved in possession of ammunition.

Headnote:

Arms Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the interpretation of 'possession' under Section 25 of the Arms Act, emphasizing the requirement of conscious possession and the mental element involved. It referenced key legal provisions from the Arms Act, including Section 2(b), Section 45(d), and Section 39, and highlighted the principles established in Sanjay Dutt v. State, Gunwantlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, and other relevant cases.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was charged under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 for possessing a live cartridge at the airport. The petitioner claimed lack of evidence and conscious possession, seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the concept of 'possession' under the Arms Act, emphasizing the requirement of conscious possession and the mental element involved. It found that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession of the live cartridge, leading to the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

Issues: The issues included the interpretation of 'possession' under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the requirement of conscious possession, and the applicability of strict liability in cases of unauthorized possession of ammunition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that conscious possession is a core ingredient to establish guilt under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and in the absence of conscious possession, the proceedings should be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR bearing No.302/2013, the charge-sheet, and the summoning order dated 31st July, 2014, along with all proceedings emanating therefrom pending before ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.


1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR bearing No.302/2013, under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at P.S. IGI Airport, the charge-sheet filed therein as well as the summoning order dated 31st July, 2014 and all proceedings emanating there from which are pending before ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5th October, 2013 a complaint was received at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi from SI Vikas Kumar CISF No.022240071 that while he was performing his duty at X-ray Machine No.X-BIS-06, Intl. SHA (Security Hold Area), Departure Wing IGI Airport Delhi, during the scanning of petitioner's hand bag, one live cartridge of .32 calibre was detected. On physically checking the handbag, one live cartridge was found inside the handbag and on questioning, the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reply and therefore, on the said complaint, the case vide FIR No.302/2013 dated 5th October, 2013 under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi. On that day, the petitioner was departing for Guangzhao by China Southern Airlines Flight No.CZ-3028 on the strength of his Indian Passport No.H-80280651.

2.1 During the course of investigation, the above said live cartridge was taken into police possession through seizure memo and then deposited in PS Malkhana. After that, the petitioner was interrogated and he stated that he is serving as a Sub-Inspector in 80th Battallion, Punjab Armed Police and he was departing to meet his family who is settled in California, USA. He also stated that he borrowed the said handbag from one of his friend, namely, Inderjeet Singh who is holding a valid Arms Licence in Punjab. As he did not check the bag thoroughly and had put the clothes inside the handbag without checking the same, so the said cartridge was detected from his handbag during the scanning at IGI Airport.

2.2 The petitioner was arrested in this case as he could not provide any valid licence/document regarding the possession of the live cartridge. He was produced before the MM, Patiala House Court, Delhi and he was released on bail vide order dated 6th October, 2013. The statements of witnesses were recorded who stated that his handbag was checked in their presence and on checking one live cartridge was recovered. The seized cartridge was deposited at FSL Rohini, Delhi for ballistic/expert opinion and the FSL report. The FSL report was procured and the same revealed that the cartridge recovered from the accused is.32 calibre and the same is a live one which can be fired through .32 calibre firearm. It has test fired successfully. The same is ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959.

3. The charge-sheet was prepared against him after getting the sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act and the same had been filed in the Court of ACMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The notice had been issued to petitioner.

4. The petitioner’s case is that on the bare perusal of the charge-sheet filed by the police, it evidently shows that there is no evidence against the petitioner of possessing any live cartridge except the statements of the police personnel present at the spot.

5. No live cartridge was ever recovered from the possession of the petitioner or his bag, and the FIR and the subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed. There were many public witnesses present at that time but none of them were made witnesses to the alleged recovery nor were asked to join investigation.

5.1 It is stated that since the petitioner had borrowed the said bag from which the allegedly recovery was made from, the live cartridge could have been of his friend, namely Inderjeet Singh S/o Ravinder Singh R/o Jyoti Nagar, Jalandhar, who holds a valid Arm License of .32 bore in Punjab and that he inadvertently forgot to check the said bag thoroughly and put his clothes inside the handbag without checking the same.






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top