The Delhi High Court while emphasizing that in cases involving charges under the Arms Act, 1959, "conscious possession" is a crucial element has observed that it must be proven that the accused knowingly and intentionally possessed these items with a criminal intent or purpose.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, Mohd. Nazim, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the quashing of FIR at PS. IGI Airport under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, and all related proceedings.The FIR was registered against Mohd. Nazim when he was found in possession of a single live cartridge (.32) in his check-in baggage while traveling from Delhi to Riyadh.Mohd. Nazim claimed to be a businessman from Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.He explained that he had recently stayed at the house of someone named Mohammad Nazim, who possessed a valid arms license.According to the petitioner, the cartridge found in his bag had inadvertently fallen into it while he was visiting Mohammad Nazim's house.He argued that he had no knowledge of the cartridge in his possession and had no intention to carry it.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that "conscious possession" is a fundamental element in cases related to the Arms Act, 1959. It noted that the mere possession of firearms or ammunition is insufficient to establish an offense. The accused must have knowingly and intentionally possessed these items with a criminal intent or purpose, the court remarked and highlighted the importance of mens rea, or the guilty state of mind, in cases under the Arms Act.
It observed that proving the intention of the accused to unlawfully possess or use firearms or ammunition is essential for a conviction. The court took note of the fact that only a single live cartridge was found in the petitioner's possession, and there were no other suspicious circumstances. It observed that, based on legal precedents, the possession of a solitary cartridge, without additional evidence of criminal intent, may not warrant prosecution under the Arms Act.
The decision of the Court:
The court quashed the FIR filed against the petitioner, Mohd. Nazim. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish conscious possession and criminal intent on the part of the petitioner regarding the single live cartridge found in his possession. The court exercised its discretionary power to quash all proceedings related to the case. Additionally, the court directed the petitioner to make a financial contribution of Rs. 50,000 to a designated Regimental Fund Account as a form of societal restitution due to the prolonged duration of the case and the involvement of police resources.
Case Name: Mohd. Nazim v. State
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2697/2021, CRL.M.A. 17267/2021 & CRL.M.A. 27336/2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advocates (Mr.Aman Nandrajog, Mr.Amitabh Sinha& Mr.Anupam Pandey)
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
