Possession of ammunition under Section 25 of the Arms Act requires conscious possession, and a single live cartridge without a firearm may not constitute an offense if the possession is not conscious.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing FIR No.273/2019, dated 24.06.2019, registered at Police Station I.G.I Airport, for offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Canadian resident, having Canadian Passport, bearing No.GK270110. It is stated that on 24.01.2019, the petitioner came to India to meet his relatives in Punjab. On 23.06.2019, when the petitioner was travelling back to Canada from Delhi via Bahrain by Flight No.GF-135, during baggage check, when the petitioner placed his baggage for scanning, it was found that the petitioner is carrying one 9 mm luger marked FC ammunition. It is stated that when the petitioner was asked to produce valid documents for ammunition, it was revealed that the petitioner did not have a license for the same. The live cartridge was seized and taken into possession and the instant FIR was registered against the petitioner. During investigation, the petitioner stated that his friend, one Sandeep Singh Gill is the holder of a valid arm License, bearing No.12310741.0003, and the recovered cartridge belonged to him.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was not in conscious possession of the ammunition and that FIR No.273/2019, dated 24.06.2019, registered at Police Station I.G.I Airport, for offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act be quashed.

4. The question as to whether a cartridge, which is capable of being fired, is a complete ammunition within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Arms Act or a minor part of ammunition as referred to in Section 45(d) of the Arms Act and whether a person can be proceeded against under the Arms Act was referred to a Division Bench of this Court in Sh. Gaganjot Singh v. State, [W.P.(Crl).1169/2014]. The Division Bench by an order dated 01.12.2014, observed as under:

"13. So far as the specific point referred to this Court is concerned, we may straightaway set out the definition of "ammunition" as in Section 2(b) of the Arms Act:

(b) "ammunition" means ammunition for any firearm, and includes--

(i) rockets, bombs, grenades, shells [and other missiles]

(ii) articles, designed for torpedo service and submarine mining.

(iii) other articles containing, or designed or adapted to contain, explosive fulminating or fissionable material or noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, whether capable of use with firearms or not,-

(iv) charges for firearms and accessories for such charges,

(v) fuses and friction tubes,

(vi) parts of, and machinery for manufacturing ammunition, and

(vii) such ingredients of ammunition as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;

It would be immediately apparent that there can be even parts of ammunition. The question which the Court would have to consider in a given case is whether the article seized is an "arm" or "ammunition". The expression "arms" are defined in Section 2(c) as:

"arms" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence, and includes firearms, sharpedged and other deadly weapons, and parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, arms....................."

14. Section 45 excepts certain classes of arms or ammunition from the rigors of the Act. Section 45(d) reads as follows:

"45. Nothing in this Act shall apply to

xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx

(d) the acquisition, possession or carrying by a person of minor parts of arms or ammunition which are not intended to be used along with complementary parts acquired or possessed by that or any other person."

15. In Chang Hong Saik (supra), like in the present case, a single live cartridge was found from the possession of the alleged offender. The learned Single Judge proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings. The discussion in that judgment was that there were no suspicious circumstances other than the mere recovery of the live cartridge from the po