Suresh Kait, J.

1. The instant petition is being filed for quashing of the FIR No.126/2011 registered at PS IGI Airport for the offences punishable under section 25 Arms Act, 1959.

2. The petitioner also prayed to set aside the charge framed against him vide order dated 18.08.2011 passed by learned ACMM, Dwarka Courts, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The same reads as under:-

“I, Rajesh Kumar Goel, ACMM02, Dwarka hereby charge you Chan Hong SAIK s/o Cham Siew Teong as under:-

That on 14/03/2011 at about 19:50 hrs. At departure level of T-3, of IGI Airport, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Domestic Airport, you were found in possession of one live cartridge of 9 m.m. from your handbag, without any license or permit in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959, and thus, you have committed an offence punishable U/S 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959, and within my cognizance.

3. As per the charge-sheet, the case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that on 15.03.2011 at about 1950 hrs. at BIS No.4 departure level of T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, a passenger, namely; Chan Hong Saik/petitioner, who intended to go to Kuaalalumpur by flight No.1 MH, was carrying one bag, approached for security clearance. During the course of checking, one 9 mm live cartridge was recovered from his bag. The passenger had no valid licence for the ammunition recovered from his possession.

4. During the course of investigation, prosecution witnesses were examined and their statement under section 161 of Cr.PC were recorded. Site plan prepared, seizure memo of the cartridge was prepared, sketch of cartridge was drawn, recovered ammunition was sent to FSL for examination, FSL report/expert opinion of ammunition/cartridges recovered from the possession of the accused was obtained.

5. As per the opinion, the cartridge recovered from the accused is live cartridge and covered under the category of Indian Arms Act, 1939. Accordingly, the sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act obtained which is on record.

6. From the investigation conducted so far, the prosecution found sufficient evidence against the petitioner on record in the form of oral deposition and the recovery of the life ammunition to prosecute him under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the instant petition has been filed by the attorney of the accused Chan Hong Saik who was arrested by the police at IGI Airport, New Delhi in case FIR No. 126/2011 dated 15.03.2011 registered under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged offence occurred from Monday 14.03.2011, 1950 Hrs. to Tuesday 15.03.2011, 00.30 Hrs.

9. He pointed out that Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the time of the occurrence has not been mentioned in the FIR, rather it is preferred to be left blank. In the column No.3(b) of the FIR the date of receipt of information at police station is mentioned as 15.03.2011 at 00:30 hrs; and in column (c) thereof, general diary reference, entry No.2A and time 00:30 hrs is mentioned. The direction and distance from police station is mentioned as South-West/0.6KM is written in column No.4(a) of the FIR.

10. He further submitted that the alleged occurrence came to the knowledge of the police at 19:50hrs and the alleged spot was in the airport itself and the present FIR was lodged at 00:30 hrs on 15.03.2011 and the distance from the police station to the spot is about 500 meters, which is itself in the airport premises. Therefore, there is delay in lodging the FIR and as to what the police was managing in between; prosecution has no explanation.

11. Further submitted that petitioner came from Lucknow to Delhi and thereafter by connecting flight he had to go to Kualalumpur, Malaysia i.e. his native country from the same airport. The petitioner was a member of group of 22 persons along with his son namely Goh Sai Hong.

12. He further submitted that the petitioner who is a Bu