The central legal point established is that possession under the Arms Act requires conscious possession with the requisite mental element, and mere custody without awareness does not amount to an offence.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 352/2013, under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at P.S. IGI Airport and all the proceedings emanating there from which are pending before the Court of learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

2. The brief facts stated are that on 8th December, 2013 a complaint was received at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi from one Deepak Chadha, Manager on duty of Cathay Pacific Airways that during the inline X-ray and physical search by Airport Operator Delhi International Airport Ltd. observed that the petitioner was in possession of ammunition in his check-in baggage, which was lying in the pocket of his track suit without there being any explanation for carrying the same. Therefore, on the said complaint, a case vide FIR No. 352/2013 dated 8th December, 2013 under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi and the petitioner was arrested. On the same day, the petitioner was departing for Bangkok by Cathay Pacific Airways Flight No. CX 708 on the strength of his Indian Passport No. J3784434.

3. During the course of investigation, the single cartridge was sealed with seal No. 5 IGIA and the same was taken into police possession through seizure memo. The total length of the ammunition was found to be 3 cms and on the bottom of the round K.F. 32 S & W was engraved. Thereafter, the petitioner produced a photocopy of his Arms Licence No. 372/A/Kamrun dated 30th February, 2008 issued by DM Distt-Kampur, which was valid only till 31st December, 2011 and the area of validity was limited to the State of Assam.

4. Thus by bringing the ammunition beyond the area of its validity i.e. Delhi, the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and an FIR No. 352/13 dated 8th December, 2013 was registered and the petitioner was arrested. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same day and the petitioner was produced before the Court below and was sent to Judicial Custody. Thereafter, on 9th December, 2013 the petitioner was admitted on bail.

5. Thereafter, the seized single cartridge was deposited at FSL Rohini, Delhi for ballistic/expert opinion and FSL report. The FSL report was procured and the same revealed that the cartridge recovered from the petitioner was of .32 caliber and the same is a live one which can be fired through a .32 caliber firearm. It was test fired successfully and the same is an ammunition as defined in the Arms Act, 1959.

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

7. Aggrieved by the said FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

8. The whole question hinges around whether a cartridge is complete ammunition within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Arms Act, 1959 or minor part of ammunition as reffered to in Section 45(d) of the Arms Act, 1959?

9. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is protected under clause (d) of Section 45 of Arms Act, 1959 and urges that the alleged recovery of the single cartridge amounts to possession of minor parts of Arms or Ammunition as prescribed under the provision of Section 45 (d) of Arms Act and a live cartridge can not be used for any threat purpose without firearm even if it is allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that allegation qua petitioner is finding of a live cartridge which ipso facto does not causes any crime as per Sh.Gaganjot Singh v. State, W.P.(Crl) No.1169/2014 decided by Division Bench of this Court on 1st December, 2014 and which is followed in subsequent cases such as Sonam Choudhary v. State, Crl.M.