Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Baljit Fantu – Appellant
Versus
State, Govt of NCT Delhi – Respondent
ORDER
HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
1. 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
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 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 ....
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.
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.
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 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
