Back
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Dinesh – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 1/2023 registered under Section 30 Arms Act 1959 registered at Police Station IGI Airport.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was travelling from Delhi to Kolkata by Air India Airlines, Flight number A1-762 on 31.12.2022 and during the security check, ammunitions like articles were detected in the baggage of the petitioner. While searching his baggage, three (03) ammunition shaped articles were recovered from the same. As a result, a complaint at Police Station IGI Airport was received on 01.01.2023 by complainant Ms. Dolly, Sr. Associate, DIAL Security and Vigilance, IGI Airport. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR No. 01/2023 was registered against the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. I have also perused the status report filed by the State.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was completely unaware about the articles recovered from his baggage. It is f
The concept of 'conscious possession' as a necessary element of the statutory offence under the Arms Act and the requirement of possession backed with the requisite mental element.
The concept of 'conscious possession' under the Arms Act, 1959 requires the requisite mental element of awareness, and mere custody without awareness of the nature of possession does not constitute a....
Conscious possession of firearms is a necessary requirement for establishing guilt under the Arms Act; mere custody without knowledge does not constitute an offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'possession' under the Arms Act must have the element of consciousness or knowledge, and even if the factum of physical possession is made out....
Conscious possession under the Arms Act requires awareness and intent; mere physical possession does not constitute an offense if the possessor lacks knowledge of the contraband's presence.
The absence of mala fides or mal-intention and the lack of evidence supporting conscious possession can lead to the quashing of FIR and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'conscious possession' under the Arms Act, emphasizing the need for intention, consciousness, or knowledge of possession.
A person is not liable under Section 25 of the Arms Act if not consciously in possession of ammunition, without any firearm or threat present.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
