SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Baljit Fantu - Appellant
Versus
State, Govt of NCT Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 1681 of 2020
Decided On : 12-07-2021




Conscious possession is required for prosecution under the Arms Act; mere recovery of a cartridge without knowledge does not establish a violation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - The appellant filed for quashing of FIR No.273/2019 under Section 25 of the Arms Act due to lack of conscious possession of a live cartridge during baggage check at the airport. The court examined the definition of 'ammunition' under the Arms Act and previous rulings, concluding that mere possession without knowledge does not constitute a violation. The court referenced cases establishing that charges require reasonable suspicion and sufficient evidence. (Paras 1, 4, 16, 17, 8, 9)

(B) The definition of 'ammunition' includes any component capable of use in firearms and is not restricted to parts classified as 'minor'.

(C) The court identified that the standard for 'conscious possession' must be met for prosecution under the Arms Act, aligning with established precedents that emphasize the necessity of knowledge of possession. (Paras 3, 9)

Findings of Court:
The FIR was quashed as the prosecution failed to demonstrate conscious possession on part of the petitioner, substantiated by the lack of incriminating evidence and the fact that the ammunition belonged to another with a valid license. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: Whether the seizure of a single live cartridge without knowledge can lead to prosecution under the Arms Act; and the requisite 'conscious possession' needed for establishing a charge.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that absence of conscious possession and reasonable suspicion precludes criminal liability, reiterating the necessity for sufficient evidence to support charges under the Arms Act. (Paras 9, 9)

Result: FIR No.273/2019 and all proceedings associated with it are quashed.

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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top