HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA *****

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2309 of 2015 Between:

Karan Sajnani ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents DATE OF ORDER: 25^th July, 2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No the Judgment?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Yes/No Reporters/Journals

3 Whether HER Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No ___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J * THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI + Criminal Revision Case No.2309 of 2015 % Date: 25^th July, 2025 Between:

Karan Sajnani ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Zainab Khan, learned counsel, representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy ! Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondents-State: Smt.S.Madhavi >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10218 2. 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1775 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2309 OF 2015

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-

accused No.1 seeking to set aside the impugned Order dated 08.09.2015 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3408 of 2014 in C.C.No.299 of 2014 passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, presently pending on the file of the learned XXV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District at Rajendranagar (for short ‘the learned trial Court’), registered for the offence under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959, (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Ms. Zainab Khan, learned counsel, representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondents. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-

accused No.1 and accused No.2 are friends. On 21.01.2011, the petitioner-accused No.1 celebrated his birthday at Calcutta, during which accused No.2 gifted one 380 live ammunition to the petitioner-accused No.1 for the purpose of using the same as a locket for a neck chain. The petitioner- accused No.1 kept the said live ammunition in his bag and subsequently travelled to Hyderabad by train to attend a marriage. After attending the marriage, on 13.02.2011 at around 10:00 hours, the petitioner-accused No.1 arrived at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, along with his luggage, intending to return to Calcutta. During the security check at the airport, the aforementioned live ammunition was found in his bag. For which, a case was registered against the petitioner-accused No.1 in FIR/Crime No.51 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section

25(1)(A) of the Act.

04. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet, the petitioner–accused No.1 filed an application seeking discharge. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said discharge petition by way of the impugned Order dated

08.09.2015.

05. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the discharge application, the petitioner-accused No.1 preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner–accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that there is no record or material to show that the alleged live ammunition was seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no element of intention, knowledge, or conscious possession on the part of the petitioner so as to attract the provisions of the Arms Act. Mere custody or possession of live ammunition, does not constitute an offence under the said Act. It is contended that the charge sh