Delhi High Court
Sandeep Mukherjee vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 March, 2017
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(Crl.) 3598/2016 & Crl. M.A.19586/2016
Decided on 29th March, 2017
SANDEEP MUKHERJEE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
with section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR
No.460/2016 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station
IGI Airport on the complaint of Mr. R.N. Gupta, Assistant Security Duty
Manager, Air India.
2. Petitioner has alleged that he had gone to the United States of
America in the month of January, 2008 to pursue his master‟s degree in
Computer Science from Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.
Thereafter, he took up a job in the United States of America as a software
engineer and had been working there in different companies. In the year
2011, he joined a shooting group event in Chicago and purchased 50
cartridges, out of which all the cartridges except the one were used at the
shooting range. The unused cartridge kept on lying in his bag. On 10th
December, 2016, petitioner, along with his wife, boarded the Air India
Flight No.AI 174 from San Francisco at 09:15 PST and de-boarded at IGI
Airport on 10th December, 2016. Petitioner was to go to Calcutta therefore,
he had to board another flight. While transferring the luggage of petitioner
from Flight no. AI 174 to Flight No. AI 022, it was noticed that one live
cartridge was there in his luggage, which led to the registration of the
present FIR.
3. It is submitted that petitioner was not in a conscious possession of the
said live cartridge which remained lying in his bag after the shooting event.
Petitioner was let off after the investigations. Learned counsel for petitioner
has contended that possessing live cartridges which are used in the shooting
events is not an offence as per the laws of the United States of America.
Petitioner had participated in the shooting event along with his friends for
which purpose the cartridges were purchased. All the cartridges except the
one were utilized. The unutilized cartridge, inadvertently, remained in the
bag of petitioner, which bag he used to bring luggage for his India trip.
Petitioner was not in a conscious possession of the live cartridge; therefore,
FIR may be quashed. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on
Gaganjot Singh Vs. State, MANU/DE/3227/2014, Abdul Nasir Barich Vs.
The State (NCT of Delhi), MANU/DE/3642/2016 and Sonam Chaudhary &
Ors. Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors., MANU/DE/0026/2016.
4. In Sonam Chaudhary (Supra), learned Single Judge has considered
several judgments on the point in issue and has concluded thus "Law is well
settled that „conscious possession‟ has to be established for guilt in offence
punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act." By the said judgment five
cases were disposed of. In all the cases, live cartridges were recovered from
the bags of the petitioners, resulting in the registration of the FIRs under
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Learned Single Judge held that since
petitioners were not in a „conscious possession‟ of the live cartridges, FIRs
were liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed the FIRs. Learned
Single Judge relied on Gunwantlal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1922 SC 1756, Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC
410, Gaganjot Singh Vs. State, 2014 Law Suit (Del) 4968, Nurit Toker
Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 BomCR (Cri) 154 and William Michael
Hurtubise Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., 117 (2014) CLT 303.
5. In Abdul Nasir Barich (Supra) also, eight live rounds (bullets) were
detected from the check-in baggage of the petitioner, which resulted in the
registration of the FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Petitioner took a
plea that he was not in a „conscious possession‟ of the eight live cartridges
in his check-in baggage. Petitioner further pleaded that eight bullets
belonged to his father, who was holding a licensed revolver, inasmuch as,
the said bullets had been issued in respect of the said licensed revolver.
Inadvertently, the said bullets remained in the baggage of petitioner and
were detected during the screening of baggage at the Airport. Petitioner was
not aware that his father had kept the bullets in the bag. Learned Single
Judge held that petitioner was not in a conscious possession of the bullets
and quashed the FIR.
6. In the present case, petitioner was living in the United States of
America right from 2008. He completed his master‟s degree in Chicago,
United States of America. Thereafter, he took up a job there. Petitioner‟s
wife is also working in the United States of America. It is probable and
plausible that live cartridge remained unnoticed in the bag when petitioner
began his journey from U.S.A. Nothing has come on record, during the
investigation, to suggest that petitioner was in „conscious possession‟ of the
solitary live bullet found in his bag.
7. For the foregoing reasons, FIR No.460/2016 under Sections 25 of
Arms Act registered at police station IGI Airport and consequent
proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.
8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application
is disposed of as infructuous.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
MARCH 29, 2017/dk
