Arms Act Case Based On Social Media Photos Unsustainable; No Proof Of Possession: P&H High Court Quashes FIR
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that prosecution under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 29(B) of the Arms Act cannot be sustained in the absence of essential ingredients such as unlawful possession, delivery of arms, or requisite mens rea. The Court observed that the prosecution appeared to have been initiated in the backdrop of political rivalry as the petitioner is a political figure, being...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that prosecution under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 29(B) of the Arms Act cannot be sustained in the absence of essential ingredients such as unlawful possession, delivery of arms, or requisite mens rea. The Court observed that the prosecution appeared to have been initiated in the backdrop of political rivalry as the petitioner is a political figure, being a member of a political party in opposition.
Justice Surya Partap Singh was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by Bajrang Dass and another seeking quashing of FIR based on photographs posted on social media by a third person, Vikas, who was seen holding different weapons and had allegedly stated that some of the firearms belonged to the petitioners, who were political figures associated with the Congress party. The prosecution's case was that the petitioners, being license holders, had allowed their weapons to be used by an unauthorised person, thereby attracting liability under the Arms Act. The petitioners argued that there was no allegation of any criminal use of the weapons, and the entire case was based on photographs and a disclosure statement. They also alleged that the case was motivated by a political vendetta.
The Court examined the ingredients of Section 25(1-B)(a) and held that the provision applies where a person acquires or possesses firearms in contravention of law. It found that there was no allegation that the petitioners possessed any weapon without a licence, and therefore no offence under Section 25 was made out.
With respect to Section 29(B), the Court held that the offence requires “delivery” of arms to another person without verifying authorisation. In fact, the Court found that even as per the prosecution, the photographs were taken when the weapons were lying in the house, and there was no material to show actual delivery or transfer of possession by the petitioners to the co-accused.
The Court also noted an inconsistency in the prosecution's case, as no action was taken against other individuals whose weapons appeared in similar photographs, thereby indicating a discriminatory approach. It further held that the essential element of mens rea was absent, as there was no allegation that the petitioners intended any unlawful use of the weapons.
“… for the commission of an offence, there must be the existence of mens rea. In the present case neither there is any instance nor even allegations that the weapon found in possession of Vikas was handed over with the intention to commit an illegal act. Thus, the element of mens rea, too, is missing in the present case,” the Court observed.
The Court observed that the prosecution appeared to have been initiated in the backdrop of political rivalry and lacked legal foundation. It noted that petitioner No.1 is a political figure, and presently a member of a political party in opposition, who was involved in the present prosecution only a few months prior to the general election.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR qua the petitioners.
Case Title: Bajrang Dass & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [CRM-M-30985-2021]