Mere possession without consciousness or knowledge does not constitute an offence under the Arms Act. Conscious possession and intention are essential elements for establishing an offence under the Act.

P.S.TEJI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.320/2013 dated 26.10.2013 under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station IGI Airport, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts as culled out from the record are that on 25.10.2013 at about 2200 hours, the petitioner who is a United States of America resident reported for pre-embarkment security check at the airport.

During screening of her hand baggage, one live cartridge was detected. On inquiry, the petitioner admitted the same but failed to produce any legal document to retain the cartridge. The petitioner was offloaded and handed over to the police for further action along with the recovered cartridge. The inquiry revealed that the petitioner was travelling to Newark by Flight No.UA-83X.

3. On receipt of the information, the police reached the airport and seized the recovered live cartridge after preparing its sketch. The cartridge was converted into a sealed parcel and FSL form was filled up. A rukka was prepared and FIR of the present case was registered.

4. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was interrogated, who disclosed that she was a USA national and an employee of United Airlines. She was having a boy friend some time ago, namely, Brain Mount who was working with US Army who usually carried her bag for his own use. The boy friend of the petitioner was having a gun in the US and the recovered cartridge might be of the boy friend of the petitioner. After recording disclosure statement of the petitioner, she was put under arrest. Seized cartridge was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and as per the report of the FSL, the recovered cartridge was found to be live. Test fire was successfully conducted in the laboratory and it was opined to be ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act was obtained and charge sheet was filed in the Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was unaware that she was in possession of the cartridge lying in her handbag. It is further argued that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the live cartridge. There is absence of reasonable suspicion and sufficient material against the petitioner to frame charge. It is further argued that the petitioner is a respectable person and she has clean antecedents as she has never been involved in any other criminal case. It is further submitted that the recovered cartridge might be of the boy friend of the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the present petition on the ground that on interrogation, the petitioner failed to produce any Valid Arms Licence to authenticate the possession of the cartridge as legal and thus prima facie an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was made out. He further argued that during the course of investigation, the accused was interrogated who admitted her guilt of carrying live ammunition with her in her hang bag without a valid arms licence. Further, the ballistic expert has opined that the cartridge sent for examination was live and covered under ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959. He further argued that there is sufficient evidence on record against the petitioner to prosecute her under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

8. I have gone through the ratio of judgment in the case of Gunwantlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0130/1972 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that :

“5..................The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act in our view must have, firstly the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in the person charged with such offence and secondly where he has not the actual physical pos