Delhi High Court
Juan Manuel Sanchez Rosas vs State Through; Nct Delhi & Anr. on 29 April, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~R-179
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 29, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 2642/2014 & Crl.M.A.14383/2014
JUAN MANUEL SANCHEZ ROSAS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Avi Singh and Ms. Sumi
Anand, Advocates
versus
STATE THROUGH: NCT DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Vijay Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Petitioner is Lieutenant Colonel in the armed forces of Columbia
and he was invited by the Government of India to participate in the 6 th
International Defence Exhibition on Naval and Land System - Defexpo
India, held in New Delhi from 14th to 19th February, 2010. On 18th
February, 2010 petitioner had gone to Indira Gandhi International
Airport, Delhi to take return flight to his country and on checking of his
baggage, two live bullets of 9 mm were found. Accordingly, FIR
No.94/2010 under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 was registered at
Police Station IGI Airport, Delhi against petitioner. Quashing of
Crl.M.C.No.2642/2014 Page 1
aforesaid FIR is sought in this petition on the ground that petitioner was
not in conscious possession of two live bullets of 9 mm. In this FIR case,
charge-sheet has been filed.
Upon notice of this petition, respondent-State has filed a status
report, which discloses that as per the FSL report, the two cartridges
recovered were live and could be fired through 9 mm caliber firearm.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the two live cartridges
recovered from the possession of petitioner were issued to him in respect
of his service revolver which petitioner had not carried with him when he
came to this country and by sheer inadvertence, those two live cartridges
were left in the baggage of petitioner. Attention of this Court is drawn to
Apex Court decision in Gunwantlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
(1972) 2 SCC 194 to submit that the possession of a firearm must be
conscious to entail prosecution under the Arms Act. Reliance was also
placed upon Apex Court decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State Through CBI
Bombay (II) 1994(5) SCC 410 to submit that prosecution for an offence
punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act, the prosecution is required
to prove that possession of firearms was conscious one. It is submitted
on behalf of the petitioner that this Court in Crl.M.C.No. 1455/2014
Manuel R. Encarnacion v. State Through NCT of Delhi & Anr. had ruled
on 22nd May, 2014 that possession of 3 live cartridges by Police Officer
of New York Police Department was not the conscious one and had
quashed the FIR.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the FIR of this case, copy of the
charge-sheet filed, status report and the decisions cited, I find that it
cannot be said that petitioner was in conscious possession of the two live
Crl.M.C.No.2642/2014 Page 2
cartridges. When petitioner, a serving Lt. Colonel in Armed Forces of
Columbia asserts that recovered cartridges were of his service revolver,
there is no reason to discard his stand.
Applying the dictum of the Apex Court in Gunwantlal (supra)
reiterated in Sanjay Dutt (supra) to the facts of the instant case, I find that
continuance of proceedings would be an exercise in futility as the
necessary ingredients to constitute the offence in question is lacking.
Consequentially, this petition and application are allowed and FIR
No.94/2010 under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 registered at
Police Station IGI Airport, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom
are hereby quashed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.2642/2014 Page 3
