"Prima Facie Offence Under Arms Act": Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Canadian Citizen With 50 Live Cartridges In Flight Baggage

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against a Canadian citizen whose flight check-in baggage was found with 50 live cartridges. The Court observed that prima facie, there was commission of offence under the Arms Act, 1959.

Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed a petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered under sec. 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner being a Canadian citizen, held an Overseas Citizen of India card.

According to the facts of the case, the petitioner had arrived in Delhi from Canada in February last year and was supposed to catch a connecting flight from New Delhi to Amritsar on February 10, 2021.

It was stated that during the check-in at the IGI Airport, New Delhi, the baggage of the petitioner was found with 50 live cartridges of .22 mm caliber. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to produce a valid licence for the said ammunition, and he was unable to produce the same. On the said complaint, the FIR was registered against the petitioner.

It was stated that the petitioner held a valid arms licence in Canada. However, he had no registered firearm under his licence. The petitioner was granted bail and was permitted to go to Canada for a period of six months by the Trial Court.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that under the firearm licence issued at Canada, a licensee can have three classes of firearms (a) non-restricted, (b) restricted, (c) prohibited.

It was submitted that the non-restricted firearm need not be registered under a firearm licence. However, the restricted and prohibited firearm needs mandatory registration. It was also submitted that since a non-restricted firearm does not require any registration, there was no law in Canada for purchase of cartridges for such fire arms.

It was also submitted that the check-in for domestic flight commences only two hours prior to departure and that there was not possibility that the petitioner could have inserted the firearm in his baggage. It was thus argued that the same showed that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the firearm.

On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner was found with 50 cartridges and he was travelling overseas into the country. It was stated that since it was a box full of cartridges weighing almost about 200 grams, the petitioner could not raise the bogey of unconscious possession.

It was also argued that whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of the cartridges or not was an issue that must be decided during the trial.

"In most of these cases, a single live cartridge has been found in possession of the accused and this Court found that there was reasonable or sufficient material to indicate that the person carrying one live cartridge might not have been in conscious possession of the same. Furthermore, in all these cases, the accused or his near family members possessed a valid arms licence in India," the Court noted.

The Court also noted that the petitioner was found with a box containing 50 cartridges and had an arms licence in Canada. It also noted that it had to be established by the petitioner that he did not require a licence to purchase cartridges for .22 long range caliber rifle in Canada.

"It has also to be established by the petitioner that he can purchase any number of cartridges and ammunition in Canada. The reliance of the petitioner on the Baggage Rules, 2016 is of no consequence for the reason that the Baggage Rules. 2016 under the Customs Act is for the purpose of payment of duty, and this cannot absolve the petitioner of an offence under the Arms Act, 1959," the Court said.

It added "A person of Indian origin is permitted to bring 50 cartridges into India and need not pay duty for the same. This cannot mean that the petitioner can be exonerated for an offence under the Arms Act, 1959 in India which prohibits a person from carrying arms and ammunition without a proper licence."

The Court agreed with the submission made on behalf that the box containing 50 cartridges weighing around 200 grams could not have been inadvertently kept in the bag.

"The petitioner could have assumed that he was permitted to carry these ammunitions in the country on the ground that he has a valid licence in Canada and that he would not have to pay duty on the same but that reason is not sufficient to quash the FIR. The petitioner would have to face trial and get himself exonerated in the trial by proving that he was not in conscious possession of the cartridges," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Also Read: 'No Conscious Possession': Delhi High Court Quashes FIR U/S 25 Arms Act For Carrying Live Ammunitions In Flight Check-In Baggage

Case Title: GURJIT SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 238

Click Here To Read Order