Delhi High Court
Rajesh Singh vs State & Anr. on 30 January, 2020
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.01.2020
+ CRL.M.C. 509/2020
RAJESH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Singh, Md. Kamran Khan,
Mr. A. Imran and Mr. Ajeet Kumar
Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL. M.A. 2140/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 509/2020
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.
117/2019 registered at Police Station - Domestic Airport, IGI, New Delhi
and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. The present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by stating that
the petitioner on 13.09.2019, received message that his Bua has expired,
after receiving of message in respect of the death of his Bua (Father's sister)
he quickly took a ticket of flight from IGI New Delhi to Patna. Petitioner in
a haste manner after taking ticket of flight rushed to the IGI Airport New
Delhi to board flight for Patna. Petitioner after reaching the IGI Airport,
New Delhi, stood in queue for checking. Petitioner while standing in queue,
was awaiting his turn to get checked by the security personnel the IGI
Airport New Delhi, in between when he put his hand inside the pocket of his
pant and found that inadvertently some live cartridges were in his pocket
and that the petitioner took out the above said live cartridge and thereafter,
he immediately handed over the same to the security personal ASI/Exe
Yogesh Yadav CISF before putting his bag for screening in X-Bis machine.
5. Case of the prosecution is that on inquiry it was found that he is not
having any valid license /document to carry the above mentioned
ammunition. Hence, Rajesh Singh along with live cartridges was handed
over to the P.S.Domestic Airport IGI for further necessary legal action. It is
submitted that a complaint vide DD No.5A was made and the same was
entrusted to the duty officer for further action as per direction of SHO.
Complainant ASI/Exe Yogesh Yadav, has handed over four live cartridges
of 7.65 MM stating that the same have been handed over by alleged Rajesh
Singh R/o.H.No.03,Sector -29,Faridabad ,Haryana at SHA, T1D who was
going from Delhi to Patna by Indigo Airlines flight No.6E-653. It is alleged
that passenger Rajesh Singh had in his possession illegal Ammunitions i.e. 4
Cartridges. Hence, committed an offence U/s 25 Arms Act. It is further
submitted that the licence holder Rajesh Singh, on 13.09.2019 had gone to
airport after taking air ticket to travel by flight to Patna. That the security
agencies upon checking found 4 live cartridge (7.65mm) Caliber, therefore,
a Case No.117 dated 13-09-2019, u/s 24/54/59 Arms Act was lodged at
Police Station -Domestic Airport, New Delhi against the license-holder,
which is under investigation .
6. 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.
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. 117/2019
registered at Police Station - Domestic Airport, IGI, New Delhi and all
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
12. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
Dasti.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2020
PB
