Delhi High Court
Umrao Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi, Through Its ... on 16 February, 2021
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16.02.2021
+ CRL.M.C. 467/2021
UMRAO SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Prashant
Shekhar and Mr. Ashwani Saini,
Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (HOME)
& ANR. .... Respondents
Through Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State with
SI Kedar Yadav, PS Domestic Airport
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T(ORAL)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
Crl. M.A.2443/2021 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 467/2021 & Crl.M.A.2442/2021 (stay)
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.
18/2019, registered at Police Station - Domestic Airport, Delhi for the
offences punishable under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959 and all
proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
"Petitioner and his friend Shri Tejender Singh were about
to take flight from Domestic Airport Delhi to Goa by
Indigo Airlines on 13.02.2019. Both, the petitioner and
his friend Shri Tejender Singh were travelling with the
same PNR No. JM3W2E Indigo Airlines Flight No.
6E399. The baggage (bag) carried the tag No. 6E-802409
in the petitioner's name though the said bag belonged to
Tejender Singh but contained the belongings of both of
them. During search of the petitioner's bag at level-2 on
13.02.2019, some object giving rise to suspicion of
ammunition was seen and said suspicion led to physical
search of the bag. Consequently, one cartridge bearing
the engraving, namely 'K.F.32 S & W.L' was recovered.
The concerned officer (Sr. Associate (ILBIS), DIAL
(Delhi International Airport Ltd.) reported on 13.02.2019
the matter to SHO, Delhi Police, P.S. I.G.I. Airport
Terminai-1D, New Delhi, for taking action pursuant to
AVSEC Circular No. 08/2017 issued by Govt. of India
dated 04.07.2017 because the petitioner himself could not
produce the valid license authorizing him to keep the
aforesaid cartridge. Whereas the petitioner's friend
namely Shri Tejender Singh did intimate that the above
referred baggage (bag) belonged to him but the same
contained the belongings of both the passengers namely
the petitioner and of Tejender Singh. That upon
registration of FIR under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, the
IO commenced the investigation and Officer gave the
action taken Report to Vigilance & Security Deptt. of
Delhi International Airport Authority Ltd. During the
course of investigation, the statement of Tejender Singh
was recorded on 13.02.2019 and Tejender Singh most
fairly admitted that the bag belonged to him and the
cartridge remained in the bag unknowingly by mistake.
The petitioner and Tejender Singh, both gave
undertakings to the investigating officer to appear before
the police officer or court as and when required. During
the course of investigation, Tejender Singh handed over
on 15.02.2019 the photocopy of the license No.
DM/RPR/DUP/RPNG 1017/426, issued in his name
authorizing him to carry the Revolver and its cartridges
all over India and the I.O. prepared the Seizure Memo
thereof in response to the inquiry (vide letter dated
15.02.2019) by Investigating Officer, the Assistant
Commissioner wrote back on 26.03.2019 to certify the
that arms license No. DM/RPR/DUP/RPNG 1017/426,
(old license No. 2525) PS Rupnagar, stands in the name
of Shri Tejender Singh. Investigating Officer finally filed
on 9.09.2019 the charge sheet dated 27.07.2019 under
section 25 of Arms Act before the Court of Ld. M.M.
Dwarka Courts, Delhi."
5. 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 (decidedon02.07.2012 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Thus, in the present case also, the possession of the cartridge was
unconscious and there was no threat to anyone.
9. Accordingly, for the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No. 18/2019,
registered at Police Station - Domestic Airport, Delhifor 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. Pending application also stands disposed of.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 16, 2021/rk
