Delhi High Court
Ms.Yaka Dodum vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 20 July, 2022
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on :02/06/2022
Order pronounced on :20/07/2022
+ W.P. (CRL.)108/2022
MS. YAKA DODUM ...PETITIONER
Through: Mr. S.V. Vats and Mr. Akash
Nawariya, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ...RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing
Counsel With Mr. Karanjeet
Adv. SI Prem Narayan, PS IGI
Airpor
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
POONAM A. BAMBA, J :
1.0 This is a petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India & u/S 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing
of FIR No. 0261/2021 dated 15.09.2021 u/Ss 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S.
I.G.I. Airport, Delhi.
2.0 It is submitted that on 15.09.2021, the petitioner was found in
possession of two live pieces of ammunition i.e., Mark 6.35 BRS & B:
Reg at Terminal T-3 of IGI Airport, as she was about to board a flight
from Delhi to Amritsar, on which the impugned FIR was registered
against the petitioner.
2.1 It is submitted that the petitioner along with her family is living
in hilly and forest area of Arunachal Pradesh, which is frequently
thronged by wild animals. For their protection, the petitioner and her
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 1of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
husband Shri Karling Dodum had taken Arm Licence being A/L.
No.III/ADC/CTJ/ 31/2013 and III/ADC/CTJ//10/2013, respectively
from the office of the "Deputy Commissioner, East Kemeng, District
Seepa (Arunachal Pradesh) which were got renewed by them as per
law, from time to time. The petitioner always carried loaded pistol in
her handbag alongwith few spare live cartridges to meet any threat /
eventuality.
2.2 It is submitted that on 15.09.2021, the petitioner was scheduled
to travel early morning to Amritsar for which, she had to first take an
early morning „Indigo‟ flight from Mohanbari, Dibrugarh Airport,
Assam for I.G.I Airport, New Delhi ; and thereafter to further take a
"Vistara" flight from Delhi to Amritsar, Punjab. To reach Dibrugarh
Airport from her place, the petitioner had to travel a distance of about
175 Kilometres and was therefore, required to start very early in the
morning. The petitioner could not pack her bags the previous night i.e.
on 14.09.2021 and the same was packed hurriedly in the morning on
15.09.2021. The time being short, mistakenly two live
cartridges/ammunitions were left in her bag although, she had removed
the pistol prior to undertaking the journey.
2.3 It is also submitted that the petitioner‟s handbag was cleared at
Mohanbari Airport, Dibrugarh Assam while boarding "Indigo" flight to
New Delhi. However, during security check for the further flight from
Delhi to Amritsar, the live cartridges were detected at T-3, IGI Airport,
Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 2of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
2.4 It is submitted that the cartridges recovered from the possession
of the petitioner belonged to the pistol / weapon of her husband duly
purchased by him on his valid Arm‟s Licence and which was being
used by her ; and that the live cartridges thereof, were inadvertently left
in her hand bag. The said possession of the live cartridges in her bag,
was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner,
who was not in conscious possession of the live cartridges, could not be
charged with the offence in the aforesaid FIR. Reliance in support is
placed upon a judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gunwantlal Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh: (1972) 2 SCC 194 and judgments of
Delhi High Court in Ranvir Arora Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.
M.C 729/2017 dated 02.05.2017 and Tarun Raghav Vs. State, Govt.
Of NCT of Delhi 2021 SCC OnLine Del 277 dated 02.02.2021.
3.0 The State vide its reply dated 14.03.2022 has mentioned that a
copy of Arm‟s Licence No.A/L No.III/ADC/CTJ/31/13 dated
20.08.2013 produced by the petitioner was sent for verification to the
Deputy Commissioner, East Kameng Distt, Seppa, Arunachal Pradesh.
District Magistrate vide its reply dated 28.12.2021, has confirmed that
the said Arm Licence No.A/L No.II/ADC/CTJ/31/13 dated 20.08.2013
has been issued to the petitioner herein by ADC Chayangtajo. It is
further mentioned that said licence has been renewed upto 31.12.2023.
3.1 Reply also mentions that sale of the said cartridges was also got
verified from M/s Mangha Arma Corporation who confirmed that the
said cartridges were sold to the petitioner on her licence
no.III/ADC/CTJ/31/13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 3of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
4.0. I have duly considered the submissions made by both the sides.
5.0. It is the petitioner‟s case that on 15.09.2021, she was to take an
early morning Indigo flight from Mohanbari, Dibrugarh Airport,
Assam for IGI Airport, New Delhi ; thereafter, to further take a Vistara
flight from Delhi to Amritsar, Punjab. The petitioner packed her
travelling baggage hurriedly, the same morning i.e. on 15.09.2021 ;
although, she had removed the weapon from her hand bag, mistakenly
two live cartridges remained in the hand bag. Thereafter, during
screening at IGI Airport, Delhi, two live cartridges were recovered
from her hand-baggage and as the petitioner could not produce any
valid arm license, the present FIR no. 0261/2021, u/Ss 25/54/59 Arms
Act. was registered against her at PS IGI Airport.
6.0. The Petitioner has sought quashing of the aforesaid FIR invoking
inherent powers of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.
7.0. It is a settled position of law that inherent powers conferred on
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C are of wide amplitude but the
same have to be exercised with care and caution. This power can be
used for twin objectives i.e. to prevent abuse of process of law ; and to
secure the ends of justice/to do complete and substantial justice.
8.0. As per the FIR, as the petitioner could not produce valid arm
license, on recovery of two live cartridges from her hand baggage
during screening at IGI Airport, New Delhi, the present FIR came to be
registered.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 4of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
8.1. As per the Status report, during investigation, petitioner‟s arms
liencse and purchase of two live cartridges were got verified. Status
report mentions that the petitioner holds a valid Arm Licence No. A/L
No.II/ADC/CTJ/31/13 dated 20.08.2013 issued by ADC Chayangtajo
and said licence has been renewed upto 31.12.2023. Even, purchase of
recovered two live cartridges on her licence no.III/ADC/CTJ/31/13, has
been verified from M/s Mangha Arma Corporation.
8.2. The petitioner has stated that she always carried loaded pistol in
her handbag alongwith few spare live cartridges to meet any threat /
eventuality. She had removed the fire arm/pistol from her handbag
before undertaking journey, but mistakenly, two live cartridges
remained in her bag, of which she had no knowledge.
9.0. Section 25 of Arms Act reads as under:
Punishment for certain offences--
(1) Whoever--
(a) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or
proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his
possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof,
any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
9.1. Nature of possession for commission of offence under Section
25 Arms Act, came to be interpreted in catena of cases. In
Gunwantlal's case (supra) as relied upon by the petitioner, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in para 5 observed :-
".............The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act
must have, firstly the element of consciousness or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 5of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
knowledge of that possession in the person charged with
such offence, and secondly, where he has not the actual
physical possession, he has none-the-less a power or control
over that weapon so that his possession thereon continues
despite physical possession being in someone
else............... As we said earlier, the first precondition for
an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of
intention, consciousness, or knowledge with which a person
possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an
offence, and secondly, that possession need not be physical
possession but can be constructive, having power and control
over the gun, while the person to whom physical possession
is given holds it subject to that power and control."
9.2. Further in its judgement dated 01.12.2014, in Shri Gaganjot
Singh vs. State in W.P. (Crl.) 1169/2014, where a single live cartridge
was found from the possession of the petitioner, the Division Bench of
this Court quashed the proceedings u/S 25 Arms Act considering that
the possession of such cartridge by the petitioner was not conscious as
he lacked awareness about the same as the bag from which the same
was recovered, belonged to his uncle.
9.3. Similar view has been taken by this court in number of cases. In
somewhat in similar facts, while quashing FIR, in case of Tarun
Raghav vs. State, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi 2021 SCC OnLine Del
277, this Court held as under :-
"7. In Chan Hong Saik Thr SPA: Aryinder Singh vs. State
and Another Crl.M.C.No.3576/2011 decided on 02.07.2011
the FIR under Section 25 Arms Act was quashed having
similar facts and the Court held:-
"43. Single live cartridge cannot be used for any
threat purpose without fire arms. Value of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 6of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
same in the market is also not attractive. It cannot be
used for any third purpose. If the intention of the
petitioner was not of either of the purpose
mentioned above, then he cannot be held guilty
and punished for the charge framed against him."
9.4. Further, in Dhanwant Kaur vs State and Another Crl.M.C.
No.3593/2016 decided on 04.10.2016 this Court noted :
"8. As verified and forms part of the charge-sheet, the
husband of the petitioner is holder of an arms license and was
also entitled to possess ammunition for the two weapons.
The case of the petitioner is that inadvertently she did not
check the pouch in which she kept her artificial jewellery
which also contained live cartridges and carried it with
her. Thus there was no material before the Court to come
to a prima facie opinion that the petitioner was in
conscious possession of 5 live cartridges. Moreover, the
constructive possession of the 5 cartridges was that of the
husband of the petitioner, whose possession is not illegal
attracting Section 25 Arms Act as he held a valid Arms
license."
10.0. In view of the above facts and circumstances and settled position
of law, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner lacked the
element of consciousness and knowledge of possession of the two live
cartridges recovered from her bag. Therefore, prima facie, the
petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of the said two
live cartridges. Thus, in the interest of justice and in furtherance of the
objective of inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482
CrPC, the FIR No. 0261/2021 u/S 25 Arms Act, P.S. I.G.I. Airport,
Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, if any,
are hereby quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 7of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
11.0 The petition is disposed of, accordingly.
POONAM A. BAMBA, J
JULY 20, 2022/chandan
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 8of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GEETA JOSHI
W.P. (Crl.) 108/2022 Page 9of 8
Signing Date:22.07.2022
16:10:40
