O R D E R

% 23.12.2024

1. The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”), [earlier Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”)] read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing No. 0530/2024, registered at Police Station - I.G.I. Airport, Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter “Arms Act”).

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the petitioner, are that the petitioner along with his friend Mr. Vivek Singh were scheduled to travel from Delhi to Jammu via Air India Flight bearing no. AI821 for a wedding, which is to be held on 23rd July, 2024. The petitioner and his friend were carrying a joint lugguage and the petitioner was carrying a bag which belong to his friend‟s mother i.e., Mrs. Kamlesh Singh, who holds a valid Arms License.

It is stated that the petitioner used the said luggage for travel purpose without checking the bag and upon reaching the Airport, the petitioner came to know that the bag contained 04 live catridges due to the physical verification of the baggage. Based on the same, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unaware of the presence of live cartridges in the aforesaid luggage until the same was detected by the security personnel during his security check at the Airport. Thus, it is submitted that his case duly falls under the ambit of “unconscious possession”. It is also submitted that he was not carrying any weapon or fire arm and that the said live catridges belong to the mother of petitioner‟s friend. It is further submitted that mother of petitioner‟s friend held a valid arms license which was valid till

4th February, 2026.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Gunwantlal v. State of M.P., (1972) 2 SCC 194, and GolapSaikia v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2017) 2 JCC 1107 and submitted to the effect that the necessary ingredient of conscious possession has to be fulfilled for constitution of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and thus, the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the instant FIR.

5. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant FIR may be quashed.

6. Per Contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that the same may be dismissed being bereft of any merits. However, he has not contradicted the fact that the Arms License is genuine and is in the name of Ms. Kamlesh Singh.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

8. The petitioner has contested that the instant FIR may be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was unaware about the possession of the recovered ammunition and thus, offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is not made out and against him.

9. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to discuss the law qua the meaning of conscious possession in the context of Section 25 of the Arms Act.

10. It is pertinent to state that the ingredient of possession under Section 25 of the Arms Act includes the factor of a mental element and the same is a pre-requisite to establish a case under the aforesaid provision as mere custody without awareness of the said possession does not constitute an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

11. It is relevant to state that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in various cases has categorically observed the aforesaid principle. In Gunwantlal v. State of M.P., (Supra), the Constitutional Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“5……. The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act in our view must have, firstly the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in t