Conscious possession is a fundamental prerequisite for penal liability regarding the carriage of ammunition. Mere physical custody lacking knowledge or intent does not satisfy the statutory mental element required for an offence, warranting the quashing of criminal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Arms Act - Possession of live ammunition - Conscious possession is a sine qua non for the commission of an offence - In the absence of conscious possession or knowledge, mere recovery of cartridges from personal belongings does not constitute a criminal offence - Mens rea remains an essential ingredient for establishing culpability. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 11)

(B) Quashing of FIR - Inherent power of the Court - Where the essential element of conscious possession is absent and criminal proceedings are likely to be an abuse of the process of law, the Court is empowered to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
A person was detained at a transportation hub for being in unauthorized possession of live ammunition found during a routine security screening of luggage. The individual claimed the items were carried inadvertently due to an oversight and lacked any knowledge regarding their presence in the belongings. No associated weapon was recovered, and the individual held a valid license for similar items elsewhere.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest the person had knowledge or control over the discovered items. Given the absence of a weapon and the unintentional nature of the custody, the requisite mental element for the offence was not established.

Issues: Whether the mere physical possession of ammunition without conscious knowledge and intent constitutes a criminal offence under the governing legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: Possession under the law must be accompanied by the mental element of consciousness or knowledge. Without proof of such awareness, mere physical recovery is insufficient to establish guilt, and continuing prosecution in such circumstances amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

Result: FIR quashed subject to the payment of costs to the designated legal services committee.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving recovery of undeclared ammunition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. conscious possession as essential element for arms act offence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. absence of mens rea and conscious possession invalidates prosecution. (Para 7 , 8)
4. inherent power to quash proceedings lacking criminal intent. (Para 9)
5. final order quashing fir with cost imposition. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Jain, J.

1. The present petition seeks quashing of FIR No.175/2024 dated 05.03.2024, registered at P.S. IGI Airport for commission of offence under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on 05.03.2024, the petitioner, who intended to travel from Delhi to London by Vistara flight, checked his baggage and when the image of his bag appeared on inline baggage screening monitor, it was suspected to be containing undeclared ammunition.

3. Such suspicion resulted in physical search and during search of his bag, five live cartridge with "32.5 & WL KF" engraved on the base were recovered and it was in the abovesaid backdrop of the facts that a case under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the accused.

4. Petitioner seeks quashing of the abovesaid FIR, primarily, for the following reasons:-

a) The petitioner holds a valid arms license issued by the Licensing Unit, and the cartridges in question pertain to the same licensed firearm of the petitioner.

b) The act of carrying the cartridge was not deliberate but occurred due to an oversight. The petitioner was not in conscious possession of the live cartridges and was completely unaware of the presence of the same in his luggage.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State submits that as per the investigation conducted, it has come to fore that the petitioner is having a valid Arms License bearing No.DM/LDH/DUP/RAKT/0317/75, valid upto 13.11.2026 and seeks to place on record status report. It is taken on record. He also acknowledges that the licensee was authorized to purchase 25 cartridges in a year and is authorized to possess 25 cartridges at a time, albeit, within the State of Punjab.

6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had no knowledge, conscious or otherwise, about the presence of such cartridges in his baggage and it was never a deliberate act. Learned counsel submits that it was rather an act of oversight or negligence. It is, therefore, prayed that since the petitioner was not having conscious possession of the live cartridges and was, totally, unaware about the presence of the same in his luggage, the FIR needs to be quashed. He relies on Ritesh v. State NCT of Delhi: 2025, Rasleen Kaur @ Rasleen Gulati v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi): 2020 SCC OnLine Del 187; Karamjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi): (2022) SCC OnLine Del 800; Satpal Deshwal v. State (NCT Of Delhi): 2025, Sh. Gaganjot Singh v. State : 2014SCC OnLine Del 6885, Jaswinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &Anr.: 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10894, Sonam Chaudhary v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi): 2016 SCC OnLine Del 47, Mandeep Lamba v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi): 2017 SCC OnLine SC 9885, Hari Kishan v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8829, Dinesh v. State of NCT of Delhi : 2023SCC OnLine Del 5496, Harmanjeet Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi : 2025 SCCOnLine Del 8927, MA Veronica Gabriel v. State of NCT of Delhi (in CRL.M.C. 7710/202; DoD 03.11.2025).

7. Reference be also made to order dated 14.01.2026 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Seema v. The State NCT of Delhi &Anr (W.P.(Crl) 85/2026) wherein also, the accused therein was found in possession of two live cartridges and the FIR was quashed. The relevant observations made in the abovesaid order are as under: -

"6. While praying for quashing of FIR and the criminal proceedings emanating there from, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner had no knowledge regarding the presence of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis