Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 05, 2025
AVIK SANYAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma, Mr. Mohit Tishawar, Ms. Komal & Ms. Himanshi Soni, Advs.
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for the State along
SI Manoj Kumar, PS IGI Airport.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR NO. 235/2025 dated 14.03.2025, registered at Police Station IGI Airport for offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. It is averred that on 13.03.2025, when the petitioner was travelling from Delhi to Mumbai, he placed his baggage for security screening. During the course of screening, the CISF Officer on duty noticed the image of a suspected ammunition item and referred the baggage for physical checking. Upon physical checking, one live cartridge of 7.65 KF make was recovered from the hand baggage.
3. It is alleged that upon being asked to produce valid documents for the recovered ammunition, the petitioner failed to do the same. This led to the registration of the subject FIR.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had travelled to Kolkata from Mumbai and had a valid Journey Licence for carrying the gun and ammunitions, after returning from Mumbai, he had to travel to Delhi, for which he had not gotten any Journey Licence issued as he was not going to carry his gun and ammunitions and so he had emptied his bag and left the gun and ammunitions in his Safe at Mumbai but one of the cartridges was left inside the corner of bag which was not discovered while his journey from Mumbai to Delhi but was later discovered while he was returning from Delhi to Mumbai.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has a valid Licence No.BO/JUL/10/OSR/F-IV083, issued by the competent authorities in Mumbai with permission to keep a.32 Bore Pistol along with ammunition.
6. He submits that the petitioner was completely unaware and unconscious of the presence of the live cartridge in the handbag. He submits that the petitioner had no criminal intention to carry the cartridge which was seized.
7. He submits that the petitioner holds a license that is valid till 31.08.2030 and the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 is not made out on the basis of mere possession when the suspect is not conscious of the possession of live ammunition.
8. Status Report has been filed and it is verified that the petitioner has a valid arms license.
9. In the present case, the petitioner has categorically asserted that he was not in conscious possession of the ammunition.
10. It is settled law that mere custody, without being aware of such possession does not constitute an offence under the Arms Act, 1959.
11. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner was in ‘conscious possession’ of the ammunition allegedly recovered from him or not.
12. The term ‘conscious possession’ has been elaborately dealt with by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gunwantlal v. State of M.P.: (1972) 2 SCC 194. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under: “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 the person charged with such offence and secondly where he has not the actual physical possession, he has nonetheless a power or control over that weapon so that his possession thereon continues despite physical possession being in someone else. If this were not so, then an owner of a house who leaves an unlicensed gun in that house but is not present when it was recovered by the police can plead that he was not in possession of it even though he had himself consciously kept it there when he went out. Similary, if he goes out of the house during the day and in the meantime some one conceals a pistol in his house and during his absence, the police arrives and discovers the pistol, he cannot be charged with the offence unless it can be shown that he had knowledge of the weapon being placed in his house. And yet again if a gun or firearm is given to his servant in the house to clean it, though the physical possession is with him nonetheless possession of it will be that of the owner. The concept of possession is not easy to comprehend as writers of Jurisprudence have had occasions to point out. In some cases under Section 19(1)(f) of the Arms Act, 1878 it has been held that the word “possession” means exclusive possession and the word “control” means effective control but this does not solve the problem. As we said earlier, the first precondition for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and secondly that possession need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the gun, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power and control. ………….”
13. In the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II): (1994) 5 SCC 410, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing what entails conscious possession, observed as under: “19. The meaning of the first ingredient of ‘possession’ of any such arms etc. is not disputed. Even though the word ‘possession’ is not preceded by any adjective like ‘knowingly’, yet it is common ground that in the context the word ‘possession’ must mean possession with the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession. There is a mental element in the concept of possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of ‘possession’ in Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious possession. This is how the ingredient of possession in similar context of a statutory offence importing strict liability on account of mere possession of an unauthorised substance has been understood.”
14. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not conscious of the fact that the bag carried by him contained 01 live cartridge. It is to be kept in mind that the arms which are alleged to be carried by the petitioner is not a gun but 01 live cartridge. It is relevant to note that the petitioner made no attempt to conceal the live cartridge in the bag and handed it for screening. In such circumstances, the version of the petitioner is a plausible one.
15. The State has not alleged that the possession was conscious or there was some mens rea behind carrying the cartridge. The present case seems to be a case where the petitioner inadvertently carried the cartridges in his baggage.
16. In similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Adhiraj Singh Yadav Vs. State: W.P.(CRL) 754/2020, held as under:
17. In Sonam Chaudhary v. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi): CRL.M.C. 471/2015, it was held as under:
a live cartridge the proceedings cannot continue qua the petitioner under the Arms Act, 1959. Accordingly, while allowing the petition noted above, this Court quashed the FIR, summoning order and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
32. Thus, the law is well settled that ‘conscious possession’ is a core ingredient to establish the guilt for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
33. Coming back to the cases in hand, the same are covered by the above said decisions of the Supreme Court as case of the prosecution is not that the petitioners were in conscious possession and, therefore, on the basis of mere possession of live cartridge/cartridges, the proceedings cannot continue qua the petitioners under the Arms Act, 1959.
34. Therefore, applying the said principles of law, as discussed above, and considering the fact that the petitioners had left behind the live cartridge/cartridges in their luggage by mistake and/or inadvertent oversight, when they started their respective journeys and that the petitioners were not aware of the presence of the live cartridge/cartridges in their handbags till the same were detected by the security personnel during screening of the baggages at the concerned places, it can be safely inferred that the said possession does not fall within the ambit of ‘conscious possession’. Admittedly, no firearm or weapon has been recovered from any of the petitioner and they have not extended any threat to any person or police official, hence, no offence under Section 25 of the Act is made out against any of the petitioner. Therefore, allowing continuance of the criminal proceedings against them would be an abuse of the process of Court.
35. Thus, the cases of the petitioners are squarely covered under the above said judgments and hence the entire proceedings, including the summoning order, charge-sheet, FIR need to be quashed.” (emphasis supplied)
18. In the cases of Ram Prakash Mishra v. The State (N.C.T of Delhi): W.P.(CRL) 674/2020 and Shafeek Ahmad v. State (NCT of Delhi): W.P.(CRL) 459/2022, Coordinate Benches of this Court had quashed the FIR registered for the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 in similar circumstances by observing that conscious possession is required to constitute the aforesaid offence.
19. It is also worth noting that Section 45(d) of the Arms Act, 1959 does not make the acquisition/possession or carrying of minor parts of arms or ammunition which are not intended to be used along with complementary parts an offence under the Arms Act. In the present case, barring the allegation that the petitioner had been found in possession of 01 live cartridge in his baggage, there is no other material on record to show that the petitioner was in possession of any complimentary part for its use.
20. On a holistic reading of the facts and the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 are not made out against the petitioner.
21. It is settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the Court can interfere at any stage to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court finds that continuance of the proceedings would be a futile exercise. This is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
22. In view of the above, FIR No.235/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the payment of cost of ₹30,000/- by the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi Police Martyrs Fund, within a period of eight weeks from the date.
23. Let the proof of deposit of cost be submitted to the concerned SHO.
24. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
25. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 5, 2025 “SK”