Conscious possession is essential to constitute an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner, a Sepoy in the Indian Army, was posted with the Counter Insurgency Force and was travelling on sanctioned leave.

One empty INSAS magazine and five live cartridges, which had remained in his baggage from his official duties, were inadvertently carried by him to the IGI Airport.

Upon noticing them, he placed the articles in a dustbin at the airport, allegedly in a state of panic and while concerned about his wife’s hospitalisation.

The articles were recovered from the dustbin, and CCTV footage allegedly showed the petitioner discarding them.

An FIR was registered at Police Station IGI Airport under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner subsequently joined the investigation and cooperated with the authorities.

He approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Whether the petitioner’s inadvertent carrying of one INSAS magazine and five live cartridges constituted “conscious possession” so as to attract liability under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959?

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the FIR and consequential proceedings ought to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, which requires possession of arms or ammunition in circumstances attracting penal liability.

It held that “possession” under the Arms Act must involve consciousness or knowledge of possession.

Relying on Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194, the Court reiterated that possession necessarily contains an element of consciousness or knowledge.

It further relied on Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410, which held that mere custody without awareness does not amount to conscious possession.

Adhiraj Singh Yadav v. State, W.P.(CRL.) 754/2020, decided on 31 December 2020, where unconscious possession of live ammunition was held insufficient to establish an offence under Section 25.

The Court also followed Golap Saikia v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7680, and Narendra Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2335, in which FIRs concerning the inadvertent presence of live cartridges in baggage at IGI Airport were quashed.

The Court found that the petitioner was an Army Sepoy who was legally entitled to carry the INSAS magazine and cartridges during the course of his official duties.

Their presence in his baggage was attributable to inadvertence, and the petitioner discarded them immediately upon noticing them at the airport.

Applying the requirement of conscious possession under the Arms Act, the Court held that an inadvertent or unconscious carrying of ammunition, without the requisite mental awareness, could not constitute the offence under Section 25.

The petitioner’s prompt cooperation with the investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, and the surrounding circumstances rendered his explanation satisfactory.

Accordingly, continuation of the prosecution would not serve the ends of justice.

FIR No. 0504 dated 13 July 2025, registered at Police Station IGI Airport, and all proceedings emanating from it were quashed.

The petition was consequently disposed of.