High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Quash the FIR dated 06.02.2019, u/s 30 Arms Act 1959 qua the Petitioner/accused person named in the FIR along with all the proceedings emanating there from.
Brief Facts:
The brief facts of the case are that on 06.02.2019, the petitioner was departing from New Delhi to Raipur, via GoIndigo flight No. 6E-2757, seat No. 7F. It is alleged that during screening of the petitioner’s hand baggage 15 live cartridges were recovered. On questioning, the petitioner could not produce any arms licence but he stated that those catridges were related to him and he possesses the licence but the same was not carried by him at that time. He only produced the deposition slip of his licenced weapon. Hence, the present FIR under Section 30 Arms Act, 1959 was registered.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question of recovery of alleged ammunitions from the baggage of the petitioner though, not in dispute, but the petitioner holds a valid arms license issued by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. It was further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the said cartridges in his baggage and the same came to light at the time of security check. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not in “conscious possession” of the alleged recoveries, hence, no offence under the Arms Act, 1959 is made out.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was in “conscious possession” of the seized ammunitions, though he admitted that the ammunition found in the hand baggage has no ability to be used without a firearm. It was further submitted that the ammonition recovered was sent to FSL and the FSL report, dated 19.10.2020 has been received from Ballistics Division and it has been verified that the fifteen .32 cartridges are live and can be fired through the .32 caliber firearms.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that it is settled law that the expression 'possession' under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 refers to possession backed with the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession. Mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession does not constitute an offence under the Arms Act, 1959.
HC stated that 'conscious possession' of any fire arm/ammunition is a necessary ingredient of the statutory offence, entailing strict liability on the offender. The question involved in the instant case, is fully covered by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovesaid decisions, as there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify ‘conscious possession’ of the live cartridges recovered from the baggage of the petitioner.
HC stated that it is pertinent to mention here that there is no other material on record to show that the petitioner was conscious of his possession of the live cartridges in his baggage. Hence, it can be inferred that the said possession by the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of 'conscious possession' which is a core ingredient to establish the guilt for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the petitioner was not aware of the live cartridges in his hand baggage till the same were detected during screening of the petitioner’s baggage and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is involved in any other offence except the mere recoveries made from the hand baggage of the petitioner, therefore, I find that continuance of the proceeding would be a futile exercise as the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence in question is missing. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.”
Case Title: Ritesh Taneja v. State and Anr.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar
Citation: W.P.(CRL) 1302/2021
Decided on: 5th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
