The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conscious possession and the need for the accused to establish lack of awareness or inadvertent possession to avoid trial in cases involving possession of firearms or ammunition.

ORDER

1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing of FIR No. 46/2021 dated 10.02.2021, registered at Police Station I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The facts in brief, leading to the present case are as follows:-

i. The petitioner, is a Canadian citizen, who also holds an Overseas Citizen of India card. He arrived in Delhi from Canada on 09.02.2021 and was supposed to catch a connecting flight from New Delhi to Amritsaron 10.02.2021.

ii. It is stated that during the check-in at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, the baggage of the petitioner was found with 50 live cartridges of .22 mm caliber. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to produce a valid licence for the said ammunition, and he was unable to produce the same.

iii. On the said complaint, the instant FIR No.46/2021 dated 10.02.2021, at Police Station I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the petitioner.

3. It is stated that the petitioner holds a valid arms licence in Canada. However, the petitioner has no registered firearm under his licence.

4. The petitioner was granted bail and he was permitted to go to Canada for a period of six months vide order dated 15.05.2021 passed by the learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts.

5. The petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court for quashing of FIR No.46/2021 dated 10.02.2021, registered at Police Station I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi, for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959

6. Notice was issued on 10.11.2021. Status Report stands filed. The Status Report confirms the fact that the petitioner has a valid fire arm licence issued by the Canadian authorities. However, he has no registered firearm under his licence.

7. Mr. Shreeyash U Lalit, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that under the firearm licence issued at Canada, a licensee can have three classes of firearms (a)non-restricted, (b) restricted, (c) prohibited. He contends that the non-restricted firearm need not be registered under a firearm licence. However, the restricted and prohibited firearm needs mandatory registration. He further states that since a non-restricted firearm does not require any registration, there was no law in Canada for purchase of cartridges for such fire arms. The petitioner herein acquired a .22 LR (long rifle), which is predominantly used for target practice and hunting purposes. Since it is a non-restricted firearm, the licence does not indicate that the petitioner has the possession of the same. He states that for the purpose of net practice, the petitioner purchased a box of cartridges containing 50 cartridges of Stinger 22 LR (long rifle). The cartridge box has dimension of 8 cm x 4 cm x 3 cm and weighs approximately 190 grams. He states that it is a very small box and there is a possibility of the box being left unwittingly in the bag.

8. Mr. Shreeyash U Lalit, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that he boarded a flight from Winnipeg to Vancouver to Delhi and had to board a flight to Amritsar. He states that 08.02.2021, the petitioner took a Air Canada Flight No.8625 from Winnipeg to Vancouver at 6:20 AM local time. The luggage was checked-in and the cartridges were not detected. He states that there was no possibility of the petitioner to insert the firearms after his bag was checked-in. He states that he reached Vancouver at 7:30 AM local time. The petitioner landed in Delhi on 09.02.2021 at 10:00 PM 1ST. The petitioner was to board the Air Vistara flight No. UK-687 to reach Amritsar at 9:30 AM 1ST. He further states that the check-in for domestic flight commences only two hours prior to departure and again there is no possibility that the petitioner could have inserted the firearm in his baggage. He, therefore, states that this demonstrates that the petitioner was not in conscious po