Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Gaurav Sachdeva - Appellant
Versus
NCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) 552 of 2021
Decided On : 28-05-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks to quash fir under arms act. (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims non-possession of cartridge; father's valid license. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. possession of ammunition without conscious awareness considered non-offensive. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. no firearm or threat led to quashing of fir. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court quashed fir based on findings. (Para 12 , 13) |
CRL. M.A. 5356/2021
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(CRL.) 552/2021
3. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 100/2019 registered at Police Station - I.G.I. Airport, for the offences punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the live cartridge that was recovered from him whilst he was travelling from Delhi to Sri Lanka vide flight No.UL196 and had thereafter a connecting flight to Australia. He further submits that the live cartridge of 0.32 mm calibre detected in Petitioner's tagged baggage, was part of the baggage of his father used in the normal course of travelling and his father has a valid arms license bearing No. DM/FZR/DUP/FZRC/0118/11.
5. During interrogation, petitioner disclosed that his father has a valid arms license issued by the Government of Punjab. During further course of investigation, petitioner produced a copy of his father's Arms License bearing number DM/FZR/DUP/FZRC/0118/11.
6. Learned ASC for State submits that the aforesaid Arms Licence issued in the name of petitioner's father has been verified and the same is found to be genuine.
7. It is a well settled law that where a person is not conscious of the ammunition in his possession, an offence of under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 would not be made out in view of judgments Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Singh vs. The State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr., W.P.(Crl.) 2143/2019 decided on 27.09.2019; Aruna Chaudhary vs. State & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) 1975/2019 decided on 25.09.2019 and Paramdeep Singh Sran v. The State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.:(Crl.) 152/2019 decided on 29.08.2019), therefore, Section 25 Arms Act was converted into Section 30 Arms Act as the Petitioner was holding a valid Arms License.
8. The fact remains that this Court in Chan Hong Saik Vs. State and Anr., 2012(130) DRJ 504 (decided on 2.7.2012) in CRL.M.C. 3576/2011) quashed the FIR by holding that a single cartridge without firearm is a minor ammunition which is protected under clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms Act. However, the judgment delivered by this Court dated 02.07.2012 was referred to the larger Bench and vide judgment dated 06.01.2016 in case of Dharmendra vs. State in CRL.M.C. 4493/2015, the Court opined that single cartridge is ammunition and comes under the Arms Act, 1959.
9. The larger Bench referred above did not agree with the opinion of this Court but opined that since the possession of the ammunition was unconscious and there was no arm with the accused and there was no threat to anyone, therefore this Court has rightly quashed the FIR.
10. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the prosecution that there was fire arm recovered from the petitioner or there was any threat to anyone at the Airport.
11. Thus, in the present case also, the possession of the ammunition was unconscious and there was no threat to anyone.
12. Accordingly, for the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No. 100/2019 registered at Police Station - I.G.I. Airport, for the offences punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
13. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
AI
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.
Unconscious possession of ammunition while holding a valid arms license does not constitute an offense under the Arms Act, 1959, thus allowing for quashing FIR.
Possession of ammunition - FIR quashed - Petitioner disclosed that he had a valid arms license issued by State - Possession of ammunition was unconscious and there was no threat to anyone.
Conscious possession is required for prosecution under the Arms Act; mere recovery of a cartridge without knowledge does not establish a violation.
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....
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 and the need for the accused to establish lack of awareness or inadvertent possession to avoid trial in ....
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....
Possession of ammunition under the Arms Act requires consciousness or knowledge; inadvertent packing does not constitute an offense.
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
