Absence of conscious possession and mens rea precludes criminal liability for ammunition under the Arms Act.

The Petitioner, a student at NIT Tiruchchirapalli, was apprehended at Terminal-1, IGI Airport, New Delhi, on January 15, 2025, after a security scan revealed one live 9mm cartridge in his baggage.

FIR No. 0012/2025 was registered under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, at PS Domestic Airport.

The Petitioner contended that he was unaware of the cartridge's presence, suggesting it might have been left by family members who shared the suitcase, and emphasized that he possessed no firearm.

A charge-sheet was filed, and the Trial Court took cognizance on November 26, 2025.

The Petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds of lack of "conscious possession".

1. Whether the mere recovery of a live cartridge, in the absence of a firearm and knowledge of its presence, constitutes "possession" under the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The Court relied on Section 30 and Section 45(d) of the Arms Act, 1959, noting that the Act requires "conscious possession" accompanied by mens rea.

It applied the Constitution Bench precedent in Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that possession must include an element of consciousness or knowledge.

Sanjay Dutt v. State Through CBI Bombay, which clarified that "possession" means possession with the requisite mental element and not mere custody without awareness.

It further cited Michael Joseph Hayden v. State (GNCT) of Delhi and Anurag Walia v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the protection of minor ammunition under Section 45(d) when found without a firearm.

The Court observed that for an offence under the Arms Act to be sustainable, the prosecution must prove "conscious possession," which was conspicuously missing in this case.

The Petitioner's claim of oversight or negligence in checking the bag did not amount to the deliberate intent required for a criminal conviction.

Since no weapon was recovered from the Petitioner, the single live cartridge could not be used for any immediate threat, thereby attracting the exceptions under Section 45(d).

The Court reasoned that continuing the proceedings for a "milder offence" under Section 30, where the element of mens rea was entirely absent, would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

Exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court quashed FIR No. 0012/2025 and all consequential proceedings, subject to the Petitioner depositing a cost of ₹20,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.