Delhi High Court
Alotaibi Salman Wuhayamir T. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 May, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23.05.2019
+ W.P.(CRL.) 1321/2019
ALOTAIBI SALMAN WUHAYAMIR T. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Garg, Ms. Tripti Gola and
Ms. Varnika Bajaj, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC with SI
Satyaveer, PS IGI Airport.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
A.K. CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
By the instant petition, the petitioner, in effect, seeks issuance of a
Writ of Certiorari to quash FIR No.15/2019 PS IGI Airport under Section
25/54/59 of the Arms Act.
2. Concisely, the facts relevant to the petition are that the petitioner, who
is a Saudi Arabian national, had come to Delhi on a medical visa bearing
No. VK8690281 valid from 14.01.2019 to 13.04.2019. He has been
receiving medical treatment for 'Parkinsonism with extra pyramidal
symptoms' at Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurgaon, since the year
2017. He came to India on 15.01.2019 on medical Visa to get his medicines
from Fortis, Gurgaon. On 16.01.2019, he was to board the flight No. WY
0248 to go back to his country via Muscat and, as per the allegations, during
the course of the checking of his hand baggage, one live cartridge of 6.35
mm with diameter of 0.8 cm and length 2.2 cm was recovered. It resulted
into lodging of the subject FIR. Police released him on bail on his executing
bond with surety of the Embassy official of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the subject FIR on
the premise that the petitioner was unaware of the cartridge in his baggage.
In pursuance of the directions of the Court, the prosecution has placed on
record its status report.
3. It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was not in conscious possession of the subject cartridge and
therefore, Section 25 of the Arms Act was not attracted. In support of such
submissions, ld. counsel places reliance upon Michael Joseph Hayden vs.
State (GNCT)of Delhi, Crl. M.C. 282/2018 and Sandeep Mukherjee v.
State (NCT of Delhi), 245 (2017) DLT 641.
4. The status report, relevant to the context, records as under:
"............... During course of investigation, it was revealed that
he does not know about the fact how the said bullet has been
recovered in his baggage as he came India for his
treatment....................."
5. The averments made in the petition that the petitioner was unaware of
the subject cartridge in his baggage, find support from the status report that
has come to be filed. The fact that the petitioner has been visiting Delhi off
and on for the purposes of receiving the treatment for the ailment
'Parkinsonism with extra pyramidal symptoms', tend to support the plea of
innocence of the petitioner. The ratio of the judgments (supra) relied upon
by the ld. counsel for the petitioner, support his contention that the recovery
of only the subject cartridge, in the absence of even an indication of an
element of any criminal act or conduct attributable to him, moreso, in the
absence of any fire arm, mens rea cannot be attributed to him, for being
charged for the offence under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. The
subject matter rests therewith.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned FIR No.15/2019 PS IGI
Airport under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, is quashed.
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
MAY 23, 2019
rc
