Delhi High Court
Hardeep Kaur Gill vs State & Anr. on 16 January, 2020
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16.01.2020
+ CRL.M.C. 6715/2019
HARDEEP KAUR GILL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Satvinder Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. K.K. Ghei, APP for State
SI Satyaveer, PS IGI Airport.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL. M.A. 43553/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 6715/2019
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.
86/2017 registered at Police Station - IGI Airport, Delhi for the offences
punishable under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings
emanating therefrom.
4. The present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by stating that
the petitioner is a qualified NRI and holder of Canadian Passport bearing
No.HK861021, belongs to an educated and reputed family and is a married
lady, having minor children, who came to India to meet her relatives in
Punjab.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was travelling
back to Canada from Delhi via Zurich by Swiss INTL Airline Flight No.LX-
147 and during physical checking of her checked-in-bag, 06 live cartridges
3cm in length, 1 cm diameter of base and '.32KF SWL' engraved on the
base were recovered and the concerned Supervisor Swiss Airline personnel
informed the local police in this regard and the petitioner was brought to IGI
Airport Police Station, where an FIR No.86/2017 dated 17.03.2017 u/s
25/54/59 Arms Act was registered against the petitioner and after brief
investigation and interrogation, the alleged bullets were seized and her arrest
was deferred.
6. It is further submitted that the real brother of the petitioner namely
Kuldeep Singh is the holder of a valid arm License No.326/DM/MOGA/PS
BADHANI KALAN/Jun-2010 valid upto 13.06.2022 and the recovered
cartridges belonged to him. The petitioner had borrowed the said bag from
her brother for the purpose of carrying her belongings etc. to Canada. The
petitioner further states that the said bullets remained inside the said bag
inadvertently, as the same were already lying in the said bag because her
brother used to keep his arm and ammunition etc. in the said bag and in a
hurry, he handed over the said bag to the petitioner and she could not detect
the same that the recovered cartridges remained inside the bag and she only
came to know about the same at the Airport, when the same were detected
by the security personnel during screening of her baggage.
7. During the questioning/interrogation, the petitioner duly explained the
situation and apprised the investigating officer that it is a case of inadvertent
mistake and sheer oversight-ness. Since the petitioner did not have any
intention or requisite mens rea to carry the said cartridges for harming
anybody else at the Airport, thereafter the petitioner was let off after
sometime.
8. The investigating agency proceeded to file a charge sheet/final report
before the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi for prosecuting the petitioner under Section 25 of the
Arms Act.
9. Learned APP for State has verified that the brother of the petitioner
has a valid arms licence and had also verified that the bag which the
petitioner was carrying, belongs to her brother and the records for the
ammunition, which have been seized from the petitioner, have also been
verified. It is also been verified that the brother of the petitioner herein has a
licenced weapon for the seized ammunition.
10. While arguing the case for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
petitioner 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Thus, in the present case also, the possession of the ammunition was
unconscious and there was no threat to anyone.
15. Accordingly, for the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No. 86/2017
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.
16. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
17. Dasti.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 16, 2020
ms
