Read Time: 06 minutes
Since it was clear that the petitioner had “no intention” of transporting the ammunition, court held that the case at hand was appropriate for quashing
While observing that “conscious possession” is a significant factor in prosecuting cases under the Arms Act, the Delhi High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against an individual who was found with a live cartridge at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in 2016.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee highlighted that the recovered cartridge had been inadvertently left in the petitioner's bag during travel.
"It has been held in a plethora of judgments including in Gunwant Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 194 and Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI Bombay (II) Crimes 1994 (3) 344 (SC), that 'conscious possession' is the most significant ingredient for prosecution under the Arms Act, 1959. The possession herein is not mere custody of the arms but such possession supported by mens rea or intention," the judge noted.
Since it was clear that the petitioner had “no intention” of transporting the ammunition, the court said that this case was appropriate for quashing the First Information Report (FIR).
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had recently visited a friend's house in Bijnor, where the friend possessed a valid licence for firearms issued by Uttar Pradesh authorities. During his stay, the cartridge accidentally fell into the petitioner's bag, which was later discovered at the airport.
The court noted, “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the cartridge in his bag. He further submits that it was due to panic and fear that the petitioner could not divulge this information during investigation”.
The court relied on a co-ordinate bench judgment in Chan Hong Saik Thr. Spa: Arvinder Singh vs. State (2012), wherein it was stated that when a single cartridge or bullet is found in an individual's possession without any other suspicious circumstances, such possession alone may not be sufficient for prosecution.
It said that a solitary cartridge falls under minor ammunition, protected by clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms Act, 1959.
“The petition is allowed and FIR NO. 70/2016 dated 19.02.2016 registered at PS. IGI Airport under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed”, the court said in its order dated August 17.
However, since the FIR was pending since last 7 years and the police machinery was put in motion, and involved for a considerable period of time, the single-judge bench said, “This Court finds it appropriate that the petitioner contributes towards the betterment of the society by doing some social good”.
“Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs. 50,000/- with the Regimental Fund Account, 3 Assam within a period of one week from today. Renotify on 23.08.2023 for compliance thereof”, the court ordered.
Case Title: Mohd. Nazim v. State
Please Login or Register
