Delhi High Court
Anurag Walia vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 16 October, 2019
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:16.10.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 5272/2019
ANURAG WALIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shreyash Lalit and Mr. Aamir
Choudhary, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL. M.A. 38281/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 5272/2019
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.
77/2018 registered at Police Station - Palam Airport, Delhi for the offences
punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings emanating
therefrom.
4. The present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by stating that
the unfortunate incident took place within the jurisdiction of P.S. I.G.I
Airport on 20.02.2018 when the petitioner was leaving from Delhi to
Mumbai through flight Go Air G-8334. He was travelling with his sister on
the said flight, and before going to the airport, he took his bag for the
purpose of storing his personal belongings.
5. Upon arriving at the airport and after collecting the boarding pass
from security, one live cartridge 7.62 MM caliber was detected in the
baggage. He had no knowledge about this cartridge which was detected
inside his bag, nor any information as to how the live ammunition reached
his bag. Aforementioned cartridge does not belong to any gun owned by the
Petitioner, and neither is there any rational reason for the Petitioner to have
been in possession of the same.
6. While arguing the case for the petitioner, learned counsel for 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Thus, in the present case also, the possession of the ammunition was
unconscious and there was no threat to anyone.
11. Accordingly, for the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No. 77/2018
registered at Police Station - Palam Airport, Delhi for the offences
punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings emanating
therefrom are hereby quashed.
12. The petition is allowed accordingly.
13. Dasti.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 16, 2019
PB
