Madhya Pradesh High Court
Taher vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 13th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57707 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
TAHER S/O JOHER TAILOR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDY R/O 147 KHATIWALA TANK G-1 MUSTAFA
SAIFEE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PALASH CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION AERODRUM, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NISHA JAISWAL, PANEL LAWYER)
(BY SHRI MANISH SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been preferred to
quash the FIR bearing Crime No.761/2022 registered at P.S.,
Aerodrome, Indore against the applicant for the offence punishable
under Section 25 of Arms Act.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 13.10.2022 at
about 19.10 hours when ASI/EXE CISF Vikas Kumar was
screening/checking the luggage of the passengers at Devi Ahilya
Holkar Airport, Indore, he found two empty cartridges (EFCS) marked
as 0.223 TSC REM and one without mark from the luggage of the
applicant. On being asked applicant did not produce any valid license
and stated that he had gone to a shooting range in Kuwait, where he
picked the same during shooting practice. Vikas Kumar informed to
the Inspector, CISF, Ashiwini Kumar, who vide written letter dated
13.10.2022 sent the applicant to P.S., Aerodrome, Indore, where on
the basis of aforesaid written complaint FIR bearing Crime
No.761/2022 was registered against the applicant for the offence
punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant referring to the definition of
"Ammunition" under sub-Clause 1 of Section 2(i) of the Arms Act,
1959 and also the definition of "Cartridge" under Clause 12 of Rule 2
of the Arms Rules, 2016, submits that empty cartridge never comes
under the purview of "Cartridge" nor "Ammunition". He further
referring to the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the
case of Chan Hong Saik Through Spa: Arvinder Singh Vs. State and
another, 2012 (130) DRJ 504 and also other judgment passed on the
basis of findings given in the aforesaid citation submits that it has
specifically been held in the aforesaid judgment that even live
cartridge without any arm has been held as minor ammunition, which
is exempted under Section 45(d) of Arms Act, 1959. He further
submits that in view of the aforesaid empty cartridges at the most can
only be categorized under minor part of the ammunition and the same
is exempted under Clause (d) of Section 45 of Arms Act, 1959,
therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant and he cannot
be for possessing empty cartridge. Therefore, the petition be allowed
and the FIR be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer
and submits that applicant did not produce any valid license for
possessing the seized cartridges, which is an ammunition defined
under the Arms act, 19959. The petition is devoid of merit and the
same be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
6. Before going into merits of the case, it is emphasized to refer
the definition of "Ammunition" prescribed under sub-Clause (iii) of
Section 2(i)(a) of Arms Act, which is as follows:-
"(iii) other articles containing, or designed or
adapted to contain, explosive, fulminating or
fissionable material or noxious liquid, gas or other
such thing, whether capable of use with fire-arms or
not."
7. In this regard definition of cartridges prescribed under sub-
Clause 12 of Rule 2 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is also relevant, which is
as follows:-
"(12) "Cartridge" means a complete object
consisting of a cartridge case, primer, propellant,
bullet or any single or multiple projectile."
8. In the instant case, as per prosecution case itself it is alleged
against the applicant that he was found having two empty cartridges
i.e. fired cartridges. As empty cartridges neither contains any
explosive, fulminating or fissionable material or noxious liquid, gas or
other such thing, therefore, submission made by the learned counsel
for the applicant has force that empty cartridges will not fall under the
definition of "Ammunition".
9. In the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of
Chan Hong Saik (supra), which was followed in several other cases,
it has been found that live cartridge is minor ammunition, therefore,
empty cartridges can at he most be categorized as minor part of
"Ammunition", which is specifically exempted under sub-Clause (d)
of Section 45 of Arms Act, 1959 and the possession of which is not
punishable under the said Act.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, allowing the prosecution to
continue in the case would amount to abuse of the process of Court,
therefore, it is necessary to quash the proceedings in the order to serve
the ends of justice. As such, the FIR bearing Crime No.761/2022 in
the instant case as well as subsequent criminal proceedings of are
liable to be quashed.
11. Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is
allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.761/2022, registered at P.S.,
Aerodrome, Indore against the applicant for the offences punishable
under Section 25 of Arms Act and subsequent criminal proceedings
are hereby quashed.
Patil (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
Digitally signed by
JUDGE
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.12.14
17:22:18 +05'30'
