Absence of conscious possession and mens rea negates liability for possession of ammunition under Arms Act.

During baggage scanning at Terminal-1 of IGI Airport, New Delhi, security found one 9mm K.F. live cartridge in his bag

The petitioner could not explain its presence, leading to the registration of FIR No. 0173/2025 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the cartridge was in his bag due to oversight or negligence and that he lacked "conscious possession"

1. Whether the mere recovery of a live cartridge, in the absence of a firearm and any evidence of intent or knowledge, constitutes an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law

The court primarily applied Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 45(d), which exempts certain minor ammunitions

Constitutional Bench decision in Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, establishing that "possession" requires both physical custody and an element of consciousness or knowledge

Sanjay Dutt v. State Through CBI Bombay, which held that possession must mean "conscious possession" involving a mental element (mens rea)

Seema v. State NCT of Delhi and Anurag Walia v. State (NCT of Delhi), which clarified that a single cartridge without a firearm does not pose a threat and lacks the requisite intent for prosecution

The court examined whether the petitioner’s possession was "conscious" or merely accidental. It noted that the prosecution failed to show any evidence that the petitioner was aware of the cartridge's presence

Relying on the Gunwantlal and Sanjay Dutt precedents, the court reasoned that for an offence under the Arms Act to be made out, the mental element of intention or knowledge must be present

Since no firearm was recovered and no threat was intended, the court found the possession to be an act of oversight rather than a deliberate violation of the law

Following the logic in Michael Joseph Hayden, the court determined that continuing criminal proceedings for a single, unconsciously possessed cartridge would be an abuse of process

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0173/2025 and all consequential proceedings to secure the ends of justice ... subject to the petitioner depositing a cost of Rs. 20,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks