Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14.03.2023
MANJIT KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Nain, Adv.
Through: Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Ms. Priyam Aggarwal, Advs. for Mr. Sanjay Lao, St. Counsel
SI Mukesh, PS IGI Airport
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition filed seeking quashing of FIR no. 181/2021 dated 26.06.2021 registered at PS IGI Airport under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3. The petitioner was traveling from Delhi to Frankfurt by Air India flight no. AI-121 at T-3 of Indira Gandhi Airport, New Delhi. During the security check, one cartridge of.32MM caliber was found in the bag of the petitioner.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner was handed over to IGI Airport Police station for further investigation or legal action.
5. Pursuant to the same, an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that she was not aware that the cartridge was present in her handbag. It was only when the cartridge was noticed by the security personnel, that the petitioner was informed about the same and the petitioner was shocked and surprised too.
6. The status report also states that the recovered cartridge belongs to the petitioner’s husband and he has availed arms license which is valid upto 27.10.2023.
7. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted case laws stating that mere recovery of live ammunition does not amount to commission of offence under Section 25 of Arms Act and the presence of a single bullet falls within the ambit of Section 45(d) of Arms Act and is considered minor part of ammunition. Section 45(d) is extracted hereunder: “45.Act not to apply in certain cases. Nothing in this Act shall apply to …(d) the acquisition, possession or carrying by a person of minor parts of arms or ammunition which are not intended to be used along with complementary parts acquired or possessed by that or any other person.”
8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the conscious possession of the said cartridge. The Petitioner has also fully cooperated with the police.
9. While deciding a similar matter in Chang Hong Saik Through SPA Arvinder Singh v. State &Anr., (2012) 130 DRJ 504, this Hon’ble ARORA court was pleased to quash the FIR against the Petitioner therein observing in Para 43 which is extracted hereafter:
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410 has observed in para 19 that:
11. In Adhiraj Singh Yadav v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2110, this court held that: “12. In view of the above, it is well settled that an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act would not be made out in cases where ARORA the suspect was not conscious that he was in possession of live ammunition.
14. This Court has in several cases held that unconscious possession would not attract the rigours of the said Act. [See: Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Singh v. The State (GNCT of Delhi): W.P.(Crl) 2143/2019 decided on 27.09.2019; Aruna Chaudhary v. State: W.P. (Crl.) 1975/2019 decided on 25.09.2019 and Paramdeep Singh Sran v. The State (NCT of Delhi) W.P. (Crl) 152/2019 decided on 29.08.2019)].”
12. While deciding a similar matter, this court in Bakshi Mohemmed Riyazuddinv. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2251, made the following observations:
12. After a careful reading of the above judgments, it is clear that the element of “conscious possession” is a core ingredient for prosecuting the possessor under the Arms Act.
13. In view of the fact that there is no averment in the FIR that the Petitioner was aware or conscious and knowingly in possession of the ammunition in question and also that the petitioner has been able to make out a case that he was not in conscious possession of the recovered live ammunitions, I am of the view that this is a fit case for quashing. It is due a mishap that the live ammunitions remained in his bag and could not be detected earlier. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner holds a valid arms license, as indicated in the Status Report dated 28.07.2022.”
13. In view of these judgments, it seems clear that conscious possession or knowledge of the possession is required for commission of an offence under section 25 of the Arms Act. In the present case, the petitioner had no knowledge of the ammunition in her bag. It was only on enquiring with her family that she realized that the ammunition belonged to the husband of the petitioner Mr. Jagtar Singh, whose Gun Licence was pending for renewal in the office of Licence Authority (M.V.), Pehowa with Registration Number 3096/NP/DMK and the same was duly ARORA verified from the Licence Authority (M.V.), Pehowa. Therefore, the Petitioner has been able to make out a case that she was not in conscious possession of the live ammunition.
14. Since, the petitioner had no clue about the presence of cartridge in the said bag and she had no intention to carry the same in the bag, I am of the view that the FIR 181/2021 dated 26.06.2021 registered at PS IGI Airport under Section 25 Arms Act and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom can be quashed, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 10,000/- with Delhi State Legal Service Authority (DSLSA).
15. Proof of payment of the costs be filed within 6 weeks from today, failing which, the file will be put up before the Court.