Ravi Inder Singh Johar v. State NCT of Delhi

1. The present petition is filed and preferred by Ravi Inder Singh Johar, the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 500/2018 registered at P.S. IGI Airport, New Delhi u/s 25 of the Arms Act and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The petitioner is present in Court and has been identified by Ms. Harsimran Kaur Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It is the Petitioner‟s contention, that on 07.09.2018, the petitioner was travelling to Bangkok from Delhi by flight No. TG-324 and to his utter surprise during screening of his handbag, five cartridges were discovered. He states that since he had to rush to Delhi from Ludhiana, Punjab to reach the IGI Airport on time for his flight, he could not check the contents of the handbag which he had borrowed from his mother. Hence, he had no reason to check for its contents. 2022:DHC:1894

4. He further states that his mother, to whom the handbag containing the cartridges belongs to, holds a valid receipt for their purchase from the Fort Nelson, Museum, London. The said cartridges are dummy cartridges sold at the museum as memorabilia.

5. Furthermore, the petitioner did not have any knowledge of the presence of the cartridges inside the handbag he had just borrowed from his mother. Even in the chargesheet there is no mention that the petitioner had conscious possession of the alleged cartridge.

6. The status report on record discloses the following: “During further course of investigation, the exhibits (05 Cartridges) were sent to FSL, Rohini, Delhi for examination and expert opinion and as per FSL report „(i) Five.308” improvised carridges without propellant having firing pin impressions marked exhibits A[1] to A[5] are not live.

(ii) The exhibits A[1] to A[5] are ammunitions defined in the Arms Act, 1959‟.”

7. In Adhiraj Singh Yadav Vs. State, decided on 31.12.2020 in W.P.(CRL) 754/2020, this Court held that:

8. While deciding a similar matter titled „Mitali Singh v. NCT of Delhi & Anr., decided 15.12.2020, W.P.(CRL) No. 2095/2020, this court made the following observation: “8. The courts have in a number of decisions held that the conscious possession of an ammunition is sine qua non to prosecute the possessor under the Arms Act, 1959.

9. In Gunwant Lal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh: (1972) 2 SCC 194, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under:- “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 none-the-less 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. Similarly, if he goes out of the house during the day and in the meantime someone 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 (sic) 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 clement 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.”

10. In Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (II), Crimes 1994 (3) 344 (SC) the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

”

9. The above judgments require conscious possession or knowledge of the possession on part of the accused. The Petitioner has been able to make out a case that he was not conscious about the possession of the ammunition. He has also stated on record that they were dummy cartridges and the subsequent actions have taken place unknowingly.