Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Gaurav Sachdeva – Appellant
Versus
NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| 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 pa
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
