Delhi HC Quashes Arms Act Case Against Foreign National, Says Single Cartridge in Bag Was Not ‘Conscious Possession’

The Delhi High Court has held that the inadvertent presence of a single live cartridge in a traveller’s baggage does not amount to “conscious possession” and therefore cannot trigger criminal liability under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Justice Vikas Mahajan made the observations while quashing criminal proceedings against a foreign national who was booked after airport security detected a lone live cartridge in her hand baggage at IGI Airport, New Delhi.

The petitioner, a senior managerial professional from the Philippines employed with a Hong Kong–based multinational company, had arrived in India for business meetings and training sessions. During routine screening, security personnel recovered a single S&B 6.35 mm live cartridge from her cabin bag, prompting the registration of an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

She subsequently approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 0060/2025 registered at PS–IGI Airport. The petitioner maintained that the cartridge’s presence was “wholly inadvertent, without her knowledge, awareness or intention.”

Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Kapil Madan and Gurmukh Singh Arora argued that she did not possess any licensed arm and had no reason to knowingly carry ammunition. They submitted that the case was squarely covered by earlier Delhi High Court rulings where inadvertent or unconscious possession had been held insufficient to constitute an offence.

Agreeing with the petitioner’s submissions, the Court reiterated the settled legal position that the offence under Section 25 requires both physical possession and awareness. Referring to precedents, the Court observed that such decisions “clearly lay down that where the accused is not in conscious possession of the ammunition/live cartridge, he or she cannot be proceeded for the offence.”

Examining the facts, the Court said, “In the present case, only single live cartridge was recovered from the baggage of petitioner without any corresponding arms. Further, no suspicious circumstances have been pointed out in the FIR which would indicate that the possession of cartridge was conscious.”

On this basis, Justice Mahajan added," It can be said that petitioner was not in conscious possession of the ammunition. Accordingly, she cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.”

Thus, the Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating from it, disposing of the petition as well as the pending application.

For Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Madan and Mr. Gurmukh Singh Arora, Advocates.

For.Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State with SI Ashok Kumar, PS-IGI Airport.

Case Title: MA VERONICA GABRIEL vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan

Date: 14 November 2025