Mere Possession Of Ammunition Without Awareness Will Not Constitute Offence Under Arms Act : Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only the conscious possession of a firearm or ammunition, where the person is fully aware of the possession, can amount to offence under the Arms Act 1959.

Applying this principle, the High Court quashed an FIR registered against one Hari Kishen under Section 25 of the Arms Act for allegedly possessing a live catridge.

The catridge was detected in Hari Kishen's bag at the Malviya Nagar metro station by DMRC officials. Hari Kishen contended that he was not aware of the presence of the catridge in the side pocket of this bag, which was without a zip or lock. He further stated that the catridge must have been put it in his bag's side pocket by someone else while he was travelling in a share auto to the metro station.

He approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by stating that there was no whisper of allegation in the FIR that he his possession of live catridge was conscious.

The petitioner relied on precedents which had settled that the word 'possession' occurring in section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 means conscious possession and that mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession does not amount to any offence under the Arms Act, 1959 (Gunwantlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 1756, Sanjay Dutt v. State Through CBI Bombay (II) , Siddhartha Kapur v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi))

The petitioner also relied on the Delhi High Court decision in Gaganjot Singh v. State. There, the petitioner's bag was found to be having a catridge by the airport security.  The petitioner contended that he was unaware of the live cartridge in his baggage and  ontended that the bag in fact belonged to his uncle who had lent for the journey.

The single bench of Justice Anu Malhotra found that case to be identical with the case at hand.

The Court had quashed the chargesheet in that case on the finding that there was no allegation that possession was conscious. Following that, the Justice Malhotra ordered :

"In view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Gaganjot Singh (supra) and the catena of verdicts relied upon on behalf of the petitioner which are in facts pari materia to the instant case which cases have been adjudicated by the learned Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, and taking into account that there is not a whisper of an averment in the FIR as averred in the charge sheet that the petitioner was aware of being in alleged conscious and knowledgeable possession of the ammunition in question, the FIR against the petitioner is hereby quashed and thus the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner are also quashed".

Click here to download judgment

Read Judgment

.