IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 19^th OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27842 of 2025 RANJAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Prafull Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Hemant Sharma-Govt. Adv. appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

ORDER

1] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.561/2023 and the charge sheet, for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959”), registered at Police Station Aerodrome, Indore, District Indore (M.P.), and other consequential proceedings arising out of the said crime number.

2] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was flying from Indore to Mumbai on 23.07.2017, and at around 05.45 hours during the security screening of passengers at Indore Airport for IndiGo flight no.6E- 853, one live cartridge marked 7.65 mm was allegedly recovered from the baggage of the petitioner, and upon enquiry, he was not able to account for the same nor any licence for the same could be produced by him. Thus, the aforesaid FIR was lodged against the petitioner, which is under challenge in this petition.

3] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not aware that his baggage contains a live cartridge, and thus, it was not in his conscious possession. It is also submitted that otherwise also, a live cartridge is not ammunition as the defined under the Arms Act as it is a minor part of ammunition, and is exempted from prosecution under Section

45 of the Arms Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to "the Act of 1959").

Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Chan Hong Saik Thr. Spa: Arvinder Singh vs State &Another Reported as 2012 SCC Online Del 3320.

4] In addition, counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no sanction as prescribed under Section 39 of the Act of 1959 has been obtained from the District Magistrate, thereby rendering the entire prosecution invalid. In such circumstances, it is submitted that petition deserves to be allowed.

5] Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, as possession of a live cartridge is a serious offence, and does not fall within the ambit of Section 45 of the Act,which provides for minor parts of the Arms or Ammunition.

6] However, on a query made by this Court, counsel for the respondent/State has fairly admitted that no such document is on record which suggests that prior sanction was taken from the District Magistrate as prescribed under Section 39 of the Act of 1959. It is also admitted that Ballistic report is also not on record.

7] Heard the counsel for the parties and perused record.

8] It is an admitted fact that a live cartridge has been seized from the baggage of the petitioner, which was marked as 7.65 mm., although no ballistic expert’s report is filed on record.

9] So far as the decision rendered by the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Chan Hong Saik Thr. Spa: Arvinder Singh vs State &Another Reported as 2012 SCC Online Del 3320is concerned, it has already been overruled by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gaganjot Singh Vs. State 2014 Law Suit (Del) 4968 which fact ought to have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant para 16 of the judgment reads as under:

“16. The structure of Section 45(d) - is that it is only "minor parts of arms or ammunition" that are "not intended to be used along with complementary parts" which can be excluded from the application of the Act. There cannot be any question as to which category a live cartridge falls into; it is clearly whole or entire or "ammunition", given the inclusive nature of the definition under Section 2(d)