Delhi High Court
Baljit Singh Chahal vs State Nct Of Delhi on 7 November, 2019
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 07.11.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3149/2019
BALJIT SINGH CHAHAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Izhar Ahmed, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.
67/2018 registered at Police Station IGI Airport, Delhi for the offences
punishable under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings
emanating therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was travelling from
Delhi to Amsterdam by Flight No.KL-0872 having Seat No.65B on
13.02.2018 at about 0205 hrs when 01 ammunition was recovered from his
hand bag subsequent to which, FIR No.67/2018 dated 13.02.2018 was
registered at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi U/S 25/54/59 Arms Act 1959.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was put to joint interrogation by the Special
Cell, Delhi Police, during which the petitioner stated that since he had to
rush to Delhi from his native District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab to
reach IGI Airport in time for his flight, he put the hand bag without
thoroughly checking the contents thereof and therefore, himself could not
have known the presence of the cartridge in his luggage/hand baggage. The
above said 1 live cartridge belongs to the petitioner and the petitioner also
holds an Arms License bearing No.DM/SBS/DUP/SNSR/0415/30 valid in
Punjab from 01.03.2012 to 01.03.2020. Further, the factum of the aforesaid
Arms Licence was duly informed to the IO during investigation, who duly
verified the petitioner's license from the office of the Additional District
Magistrate, District Nawanshahr, Punjab.
4. While arguing the case for the petitioner, learned counsel has relied
upon decision of this Court delivered in Chan Hong Saik vs. State and
Anr., 2012 (130) DRJ 504 (decided on 02.07.2012 in CRL.M.C.
3576/2011), whereby the Court opined that a single cartridge without
firearm is a minor ammunition which is protected under clause (d) of
Section 45 of the Arms Act. 5. In addition to above, learned counsel also
relied upon the other cases decided by different High Court giving the same
opinion. However, the fact remains that the judgment delivered by this Court
dated 02.07.2012 was referred to the larger Bench and vide judgment dated
06.01.2016 in case of Dharmendra vs. State in CRL.M.C. 4493/2015, the
Court opined that single cartridge is ammunition and comes under the Arms
Act, 1959.
6. The fact remains that this Court in Chan Hong Saik (Supra) quashed
the FIR by holding that a single cartridge without firearm is a minor
ammunition which is protected under clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms
Act. The larger Bench referred above did not agree with the opinion of this
Court but however, opined that the possession of the ammunition was
unconscious and there was no arm with the accused and there was no threat
to anyone, therefore this Court has rightly quashed the FIR.
7. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the prosecution that there was
fire arm recovered from the petitioner or there was any threat to anyone at
the Airport.
8. Thus, in the present case also, the possession of the ammunition was
unconscious and there was no threat to anyone.
9. Accordingly, for the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No. 67/2018
dated 13.02.2018 registered at Police Station IGI Airport, Delhi for the
offences punishable under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 and all
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
10. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
11. Dasti.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 07, 2019
sm
