'No Conscious Possession': Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against UP Resident Found Carrying Live Cartridge At Delhi Airport In 2016, Imposes Cost
Observing that records reveal that he was not in 'conscious possession', the Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR filed against an Uttar Pradesh resident who was caught at the IGI airport with one live cartridge in his check-in baggage in 2016.The bench of Justice Saurabh Banarjee observed, "In the present matter, only a single live cartridge was recovered from the petitioner, and the...
Observing that records reveal that he was not in 'conscious possession', the Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR filed against an Uttar Pradesh resident who was caught at the IGI airport with one live cartridge in his check-in baggage in 2016.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Banarjee observed,
"In the present matter, only a single live cartridge was recovered from the petitioner, and the record reveals that the petitioner was not conscious of such possession and it was inadvertently that the cartridge remained in hid bag while travelling. In view of the factual matrix involved, this court is of the view that it is fit case to quash the FIR as the petitioner had no intention of carrying the said ammunition."
However, considering that the FIR has been pending for the last 7 years and the police machinery was put in motion, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs. 50,000/- with the Regimental Fund Account.
Mohd. Nazim had sought quashing of the FIR against him. His counsel submitted that days before the date of incident he had attended a wedding where a person was showing him licensed guns from where a cartridge inadvertently fell in his bag and therefore he was not in conscious possession.
The Court took note of a plethora of judgments including in Gunwant Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) and Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI Bombay (1994) wherein it has been held that “conscious possession” is the most significant ingredient for prosecution under the Arms Act, 1959.
"The possession herein is not mere custody of the arms but such possession supported by mens rea or intention," Court said.
Consequently, it quashed the FIR with the direction to deposit cost.
Case Title: Mohd Nazim v. State
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 779
Appearance: Aman Nandrajog, Amitabh Sinha and Anupam Pandey, Advocates for the petitioners
Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State