Absence of conscious possession and mens rea precludes prosecution for minor ammunition under the Arms Act.

On January 31, 2024, the Petitioner was intercepted at IGI Airport, Delhi, while traveling to Auckland via Singapore. During inline baggage screening, security officials discovered one live cartridge (engraved "32 KFS & WI") in his checked luggage

Consequently, FIR No. 94/2024 was registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959

The Petitioner contended that the possession was not "conscious," as the cartridge belonged to his brother’s licensed firearm and was inadvertently left in the bag due to oversight

The State’s investigation confirmed that the Petitioner’s brother held a valid arms license for a .32 bore weapon and was authorized to purchase ammunition

A charge-sheet was filed, though cognizance had not yet been taken by the Trial Court

1. Whether the mere physical recovery of a live cartridge, in the absence of mens rea or "conscious possession," is sufficient to sustain a prosecution under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Whether the high court should exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, which penalizes the possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition

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

Sanjay Dutt v. State Through CBI, which clarified that "possession" in statutory offences means "conscious possession" and not mere custody without awareness

Section 45(d) of the Arms Act, which provides certain protections regarding "minor ammunition," and Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC regarding inherent powers)

The Court analyzed the facts against the established precedent that "conscious possession" is a prerequisite for a conviction under the Arms Act. It noted that the Petitioner was unaware of the cartridge’s presence and possessed no firearm at the time of the search, which negated any animus possidendi or intent to use the ammunition

The Court observed that the cartridge belonged to the Petitioner's brother, a valid licensee, supporting the claim of accidental oversight

Citing Mohd. Nazim v. State and Chan Hong Saik v. State, the Court reasoned that the recovery of a solitary cartridge without any suspicious circumstances or accompanying weapon constitutes "minor ammunition" and does not warrant criminal prosecution

Since the essential element of mens rea was conspicuously absent, the Court found that continuing the proceedings would result in an abuse of the legal process

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash FIR No. 94/2024 and all consequential proceedings. The relief was granted subject to the Petitioner depositing costs of Rs. 20,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks