Unconscious possession of live ammunition does not constitute an offence under Section 25 Arms Act.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0426/2024 registered at Police Station IGI Airport under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, after live cartridges were recovered from his baggage at the airport.

He contended that he was a valid arms-licence holder, that the cartridges had been lawfully purchased under the licence, and that they had remained in his baggage inadvertently; consequently, he lacked conscious possession.

The State verified that the petitioner held Arms Licence No. 3030/GS Part V, renewed up to 27 December 2026, and that the ammunition was covered by the licence, although its territorial validity was limited to Uttar Pradesh.

No firearm was recovered, and no additional incriminating material emerged during investigation.

Whether possession of live ammunition under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 requires conscious possession, including knowledge or awareness of the article’s presence?

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s inadvertent possession of cartridges—despite holding a valid arms licence—constituted an offence under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959?

Whether continuation of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law?

The Court applied Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, concerning penal liability for unauthorised possession and related contraventions involving arms or ammunition.

It held, relying on the Constitution Bench decisions in Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194, and Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410, that “possession” in such penal provisions requires conscious possession—namely, awareness of the article and the requisite intention or control—not mere physical custody without knowledge.

The Court also relied on Adhiraj Singh Yadav v. State, W.P.(Crl.) 754/2020, decided on 31 December 2020, and Pritpal Singh v. State, CRL.M.C. 5732/2019, decided on 1 May 2024, which recognised that inadvertent possession of live ammunition, absent conscious awareness or mens rea, does not attract Section 25.

It further 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, where FIRs concerning unconsciously carried ammunition at IGI Airport were quashed.

The Court treated conscious possession as a necessary mental element of the offence.

Although cartridges were recovered from the petitioner’s baggage, the material on record did not establish that he knew they were present or intentionally exercised control over them.

The State’s verification confirmed that the petitioner possessed a valid arms licence and that the ammunition was covered by it; the State also did not dispute his explanation that the cartridges had remained in the baggage inadvertently.

Since no firearm or other incriminating material was recovered, and the prosecution could not demonstrate conscious possession or criminal intent, the essential ingredients of Section 25 were not made out.

Continuing the prosecution in these circumstances would therefore amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, FIR No. 0426/2024 registered at P.S. IGI Airport, together with all consequential proceedings against the petitioner, was quashed.

The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of.