Conscious Possession Is 'Core Ingredient' To Establish Guilt Under Arms Act: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against US Citizen Carrying Cartridge At IGI Airport

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a US citizen found in possession of live ammunition at the Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi, without any valid license.

Justice Jasmeet Singh granted relief while noting that 'conscious possession' is a core ingredient to establish guilt for offences under the Arms Act, 1959. The bench however ordered the Petitioner to provide a kit of Mosquito Repellent and Hand Sanitizer to each student of a primary school.

"Since the police machinery has been put in motion on account of the acts of commission & omission on behalf of the petitioner and useful time of the police which could have been utilised for important matters has been misdirected towards these petty matters, therefore, the petitioner must do some social good for the society," the bench said.

The Petitioner, who was returning to Chicago after visiting his uncle and grandmother, sought quashing of FIR registered at IGI Airport Police Station under Section 25 of the Arms Act. He submitted that that he had no knowledge of the bullet recovered from his baggage. It was his case that the cartridge belonged to his uncle, who had used his licensed weapon in celebratory firing during Diwali and one of the cartridges inadvertently remained in his pocket. The license of the paternal uncle of the petitioner was verified.

The Court took note of various judicial pronouncements including Adhiraj Singh Yadav Vs. State, where it was held that an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act would not be made out in cases where the suspect was not conscious that he was in possession of live ammunition.

Thus, it observed that 'conscious possession' is a core ingredient to establish the guilt for offences punishable under the Arms Act and mere possession without awareness cannot make the accused liable for the offence.

The court also noted that as per the judgement of Chan Hong Saik Thr. SPA : Arvinder Singh v. State & Anr., recovery of a single cartridge without any firearm was a minor ammunition which would be protected by clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms Act.

The court stated that it was apparent from the facts of the case that only a single cartridge was recovered from the Petitioners and no other firearm was recovered, which made it clear that the petitioner did not have a 'conscious possession' of the live cartridge. 

The petition was accordingly disposed off. 

CASE TITLE: NAMANPREET S DHILLON v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 728

Click Here To Read Order