Lingamally Veera Gopal Rao. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 25.09.2026
Pronounced on: 16.10.2026
Uploaded on: 16.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010014042024
+ CRL.M.C. 451/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1758/2024 STAY
LINGAMALLY VEERA GOPAL RAO. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shrey Sharawat, Mr. Ayush
Tanwar, Mr. Ketan Saxena and
Ms. Pradhee Dhingra, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP
with SI Rajesh Kumar, PS-IGI
Airport.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking, quashing of the
th
charge sheet filed in Case FIR No. 0226/2022, dated 10 June, 2022,
registered at Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi, under Section 25
of the Arms Act, 1959 and the proceedings emanating therefrom,
bearing Criminal Case No. 8406/2022, pending before the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 1 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

Brief Facts:
th
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 9 June 2022,
complainant namely Sh. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Sr. Associate (ILBIS),
came at Police Station and handed over a complaint along with pax
namely (i) Mr. Damera Ram Sudhakar Rao and (ii) Mr. Lingamally
Veera Gopal Rao.
th
3. As per his complaint, on 09 June, 2022, at 17:01 hours, the
image of bag under Tag No. 6E-0312708507, appeared at Level-2 and
the same was referred for physical check on suspicion of an
ammunition. During physical search of the bag of Mr. Damera Ram
Sudhakar Rao, who was scheduled to travel on Indigo flight 6E-2104
from Delhi to Hyderabad, single ammunition was recovered in the
presence of passenger Damera Ram Sudhakar Rao. When the said
passenger was asked to produce the valid documents for the recovered
single ammunition, he stated that the baggage in question does not
belong to him, but was belonging to his co-passenger Lingamally
Veera Gopal Rao (petitioner), as they were two pax, travelling
together and gave their baggage for group check into Indigo Airlines.
4. The petitioner was not in possession of valid documents for
carriage of the above-mentioned ammunition. Accordingly, FIR was
registered against him under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at PS
IGI Airport, Delhi.
5. During investigation, the cartridge was sent to Ballistic
Division, FSL, Rohini, Delhi for expert opinion and the result of the
FSL, Rohini confirmed that the recovered cartridge is an ammunition,
as defined in Arms Act, 1959.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 2 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

6. Permission under Section 39 Arms Act was obtained from
DCP/IGI Airport, and on completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner
came to Delhi from Hyderabad, but the cartridge was never detected at
the time of boarding of the flight from Hyderabad to Delhi. However,
the same was detected on his way back. It is submitted that petitioner
did not intend to carry the live cartridge in any manner whatsoever. He
was neither in the conscious possession of the live cartridge nor was
the same within his knowledge at the time of boarding the flight. He
was totally unaware that there was live bullet in his luggage.
8. It was therefore prayed that since the petitioner was not having
conscious possession of the live cartridge and was totally unaware
about the presence of the same in his luggage, the FIR needs to be
quashed. Reliance in this regard was placed on:-
i) Anurag Walia vs. State (NCT of Delhi & Anr.) 2019 SCC
OnLine Del. 10600;
ii) Michale Joseph Hayden vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi, 2018 SCC
OnLine Del. 8490;
iii) Gunwantlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 194;
iv) Gaurav Sachdeva vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr. W.P. (Crl.)
552/2021, decided on 28.05.2021;
v) Adhiraj Singh Yadav vs. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del. 2110;
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 3 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

vi) Jatinder Singh vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. W.P. (Crl.)
1166/2025, decided on 23.04.2025;
vii) Koteshwar Orungati vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC
OnLine Del. 798.
Submissions on behalf of the State:
9. Per contra , the learned APP submitted that during investigation,
the petitioner was interrogated at length, and during such
interrogation, he disclosed that he did not possess any arms license
and the said cartridge was found by him in the farm of his village, and
out of curiosity, he put the same inside his bag and later did not
remove it.
10. The learned APP submitted that the investigation conducted
reveal sufficient evidence against the petitioner and therefore petition
is liable to be dismissed.
Analysis & Conclusion:
11. I have heard both the sides and have perused the relevant
documents on record.
12. As per the definition of ammunition under Section 2(b) of the
Arms Act and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Gaganjot Singh Vs. State in W.P. (Crl.) 1169/2014 , live
cartridge is an ammunition.
13. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the
petitioner was in “conscious possession” of the ammunition, allegedly
recovered from him or not.
14. A perusal of Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 shows that the
term ‘possession’ refers to the possession backed by the requisite
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 4 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

mental element, i.e. conscious possession. Therefore, mere custody,
without being aware of such possession does not constitute an
offence under the Arms Act. In the case of Sanjay Dutt v. State
through CBI Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 402 , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed as under:-
“20. The meaning of the first ingredient of
“possession” of any such arms etc. is not
disputed. Even though the word 'possession' is
not preceded by any adjective like 'knowingly',
yet it is common ground that in the context the
word 'possession' must mean possession with
the requisite mental element, that is, conscious
possession and not mere custody without the
awareness of the nature of such possession.
There is a mental element in the concept of
possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of
'possession' in Section 5 of the TADA Act
means conscious possession. This is how the
ingredient of possession in similar context of a
statutory offence importing strict liability on
account of mere possession of an unauthorized
substance has been understood.”
15. It would be appropriate to make a reference to the judgment of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) 633/2023, Mohd.
Tarique Rehman vs. NCT of Delhi , wherein, under similar
circumstances, this Court had made the following pertinent
observations:-
“6. Applying the same principles to the present
case, it is evident that the Petitioner had no
knowledge of the presence of the ammunition
in his baggage. The doctrine of conscious
possession requires not only physical
possession but also awareness and intent,
neither of which are established here. The
material on record does not suggest any mens
rea or culpable intent on the part of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 5 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

Petitioner, nor does it indicate that the
ammunition was carried for any unlawful
purpose. The Petitioner’s explanation, that the
cartridge was mistakenly left in his bag by
others who borrowed it, is plausible.
Moreover, no firearm was recovered from the
Petitioner, and there is no allegation that he
attempted to use the ammunition in any
manner that posed a threat to public safety.
Given that criminal liability under the Arms
Act is stringent and must be construed strictly,
the absence of any incriminating
circumstances further reinforces the
conclusion that the Petitioner does not fall
within the mischief sought to be prevented by
the statute. Consequently, no offence under
Section 25 of the Arms Act is made out against
the Petitioner.
7. Additionally, the Petitioner has no criminal
antecedents, and the registration of an FIR in
such circumstances would serve no legitimate
purpose other than subjecting him to undue
harassment and prolonged litigation. The
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
criminal proceedings should not be permitted
to continue when they amount to an abuse of
the process of law. In the absence of any legal
or factual basis to sustain the prosecution,
allowing the proceedings to continue would be
a manifest miscarriage of justice.”
th
16. Similar reference be also made to the order dated 14 January,
2026, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Seema vs. State of
NCT of Delhi & Anr., (W.P. (Crl.) 85/2026) , wherein, the concerned
accused was found in possession of two live cartridges and the FIR
was quashed. The relevant observations made in the said order are as
under:-
“6. While praying for quashing of FIR and the
criminal proceedings emanating there from,
the learned counsel for the petitioner argues
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 6 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

that petitioner had no knowledge regarding
the presence of the aforesaid
ammunitions/cartridges in her bag and she
was only informed by the security officials of
the IGI Airport about the same. It is further
submitted that petitioner had no intention to
carry live ammunitions/ cartridges and the
recovered live cartridge cannot be used for
any threat purpose without a fire arm and it
does not attract any offence in the absence of
any knowledge of conscious possession. It is
also submitted that the petitioner’s husband
had borrowed a bag from a family friend, who
is a valid arms license holder, due to the
petitioner’s own luggage being overweight,
and the cartridges were inadvertently left in
the bag by the licensee, who had admitted to
the same in his statement given to the I.O. and
has also given his affidavit to the said effect,
which is annexed with the present petition.
xxxxxx
9. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gunwantlal v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh: (1972) 2 SCC
194 has explained the meaning of possession
in the context of Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959 and held as under:-
"The possession of a firearm under the Arms
Act in our view must have, firstly the element
of consciousness or knowledge of that
possession in the person charged with such
offence and secondly where he has not the
actual physical possession, he has none-the-
less a power or control over that weapon so
that his possession thereon continues despite
physical possession being in someone else. If
this were not so, then an owner of a house who
leaves an unlicensed gun in that house but is
not present when it was recovered by the
police can plead that he was not in possession
of it even though he had himself consciously
kept it there when he went out. Similarly, if he
goes out of the house during the day and in the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 7 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

meantime someone conceals a pistol in his
house and during his absence, the police
arrives and discovers the pistol he cannot be
charged with the offence unless it can be
shown that he had knowledge of the weapon
being placed in his house. And yet again, if a
gun or firearm is given to his servant in the
house to clean it, though the physical
possession is with him nonetheless possession
of, it will be that of the owner. The concept of
possession is not easy to comprehend as
writers of (sic) have had occasions to point
out. In some cases under Section 19(1)(f) of
the Arms Act, 1878 it has been held that the
word "possession" means exclusive possession
and the word "control" means effective control
but this does, not solve the problem. As we
said earlier, the first precondition for an
offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element
of intention, consciousness or knowledge with
which a person possessed the firearm before it
can be said to constitute an offence and
secondly that possession need not be physical
possession but can be constructive, having
power and control over the gun, while the
person to whom physical possession is given
holds it subject to that power and control.
"10. The above proposition of law was reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State Through
CBI Bombay: (II) Crimes 1994 (3) 344 (SC) and held
as under:
"20. The meaning of the first ingredient of
"possession' of any such arms etc. is not
disputed. Even though the word 'possession' is
not preceded by any adjective like 'knowingly',
yet it is common ground that in the context the
word 'possession' must mean possession with
the requisite mental element, that is, conscious
possession and not mere custody without the
awareness of the nature of such possession.
There is a mental element in the concept of
possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of
'possession' in Section 5 of the TADA Act
means conscious possession. This is how the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 8 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

ingredient of possession in similar context of a
statutory offence importing strict liability on
account of mere possession of an unauthorised
substance has been understood.”
11. In the present case, there is nothing on record to
suggest that petitioner was in conscious possession of the
two live cartridges and she was aware of the said fact.
Mere recovery of cartridge itself is not sufficient to prove
the offence in the absence of any intention. It is apparent
from the record that the petitioner was unaware of the
fact that the two cartridges were kept in her bag, since
the said bag did not belong to her, but was of the family
friend. It is also a matter of record that no weapon was
recovered from the petitioner to connect her with the
intention to use the recovered cartridge for committing
any offence.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that no offence is made out against the petitioner
under Section 25 of the Arms Act. This Court is further of
the view that allowing continuation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioner will be an abuse of
process of law.”
17. The aforesaid decisions clearly laid down that where the
accused is not in conscious possession of the ammunition/live
cartridge, he or she cannot be proceeded for the offence under Section
25 of the Arms Act.
18. In the present case, only one single live cartridge was recovered
from the baggage of the petitioner without any corresponding arms.
Further, no suspicious circumstances have been pointed out in the
FIR, which would indicate that the possession of the cartridge was
conscious.
19. Hence, in the given circumstances and regard being had to the
aforesaid legal position, it can be said that petitioner was not in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 9 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40

conscious possession of the ammunition. Accordingly, he is not liable
to prosecution for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Conclusion:
20. Consequently, to secure the ends of justice, the charge sheet
th
filed in case FIR No. 0226/2022, dated 10 June, 2022, registered
with PS IGI Airport, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the
proceedings emanating therefrom bearing CR Case No. 8406/2022,
titled “ State Vs. Lingamally Veera Gopal Rao ”, pending before the
court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi, is hereby quashed.
21. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
22. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2026/SK
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 451/2024 Page 10 of 10
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:40