Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

'No Conscious Possession': Delhi High Court Quashes FIR U/S 25 Arms Act For Carrying Live Ammunitions In Flight Check-In Baggage

Akshita Saxena

24 March 2022 9:31 AM GMT

    • No Conscious Possession: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR U/S 25 Arms Act For Carrying Live Ammunitions In Flight Check-In Baggage

    The Delhi High Court recently quashed a FIR registered under the Arms Act against a NRI, who was travelling from Delhi to Dubai in February this year, when two live ammunitions were detected in his flight check-in baggage.While allowing the plea filed by the petitioner-accused under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC, Justice Asha Menon...

    The Delhi High Court recently quashed a FIR registered under the Arms Act against a NRI, who was travelling from Delhi to Dubai in February this year, when two live ammunitions were detected in his flight check-in baggage.

    While allowing the plea filed by the petitioner-accused under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC, Justice Asha Menon observed,

    "There is no prima facie evidence that he had any mala fide intent in keeping the ammunition. The safety of passengers was not threatened. The possession was not conscious."

    As per the prosecution, the petitioner was unable to prove that he was not in the conscious possession of the cartridges.

    The counsel for the petitioner on the other hand argued that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of these two cartridges and that the same could not be used for any threat purpose, in the absence of any fire arm.

    Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court decisions to argue that in cases like the present one, where there was no "conscious possession", the courts have been quashing the FIRs.
    The High Court noted that Coordinate Benches of the Court in various decisions, including Adhiraj Singh Yadav v. State, where 1 or 2 live cartridges have been found in the possession of the accused, have taken a view that mens rea or mala fide intention must be present supporting a "conscious possession plea" of the prosecution and in the absence of any such evidence, even prima facie, there would be no reason to deny the relief to the petitioner.
    Thus, in totality of the circumstances, the Court observed that since no mala fides or mal-intention is evident from the facts and the record, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised in the present matter.
    "Additional Standing Counsel for State, conceded that the petitioner had a valid Arms License issued to him in Punjab...The bullets recovered were relatable to the licensed weapon," it noted.
    Advocate Ajay Pal Tushir appeared for petitioner. Additional Standing Counsel Avi Singh with Advocates Karan Dhalla and Mizba appeared for State.

    Case Title: KARAMJIT SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 233

    Click Here To Download Order



    Tags
    Delhi High CourtConscious PossessionSection 25 of Arms Act
    Next Story
    X