Facts
The petitioner was apprehended at IGI Airport on March 5, 2024, while traveling to London via Vistara flight, after five live cartridges (marked "32.5 & WL KF") were discovered in his checked baggage during inline screening
Source reference: p. 1, paras. 2-3Consequently, FIR No. 175/2024 was registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959
Source reference: p. 1, para. 3The petitioner moved the High Court for quashing the FIR, contending that he holds a valid arms license for the said ammunition and that the cartridges were inadvertently left in the bag due to an oversight, without any "conscious possession" or criminal intent
Source reference: p. 1-2, para. 4The State confirmed the validity of the petitioner’s license (valid until 13.11.2026) and his authorization to possess such ammunition, though restricted to the State of Punjab
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5Issues
1. Whether the mere recovery of live ammunition, in the absence of a firearm and proof of "conscious possession" or mens rea, is sufficient to maintain a prosecution under Section 25 of the Arms Act
Source reference: p. 2-5, paras. 6-82. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR to prevent the abuse of the process of law
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 9-10Law Applied
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, which penalizes the unauthorized possession of arms and ammunition
Source reference: p. 1, para. 1Constitutional Bench decision in Gunwantlal v. State of MP, which established that "possession" must include an element of "consciousness or knowledge"
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 7Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, holding that "possession" requires a requisite mental element (conscious possession) and not mere physical custody
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [the successor to Section 482 CrPC] to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Reasoning
The Court observed that for an offense to be made out under the Arms Act, the prosecution must establish "conscious possession," which integrates both physical custody and the mental element of knowledge
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 7In this case, the court found that the petitioner was a valid license holder for the recovered ammunition
Source reference: p. 2, para. 5The court noted that no firearm was recovered from the petitioner, which negated any immediate intent to use the cartridges for a criminal purpose
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Relying on precedents like Seema v. State NCT of Delhi, the court reasoned that the element of mens rea was "conspicuously absent" as the cartridges were likely left in the bag due to oversight or negligence rather than a deliberate act
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Consequently, the court determined that continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the legal process given the lack of evidence regarding the petitioner's awareness of the ammunition's presence
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Holding
The Court answered the issues in favor of the petitioner, holding that no offense is made out under Section 25 of the Arms Act in the absence of "conscious possession"
The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 175/2024 and all consequential proceedings subject to the petitioner depositing a cost of Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within four weeks
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10Original Court PDF
Harbhajan SinghvsState Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in