CRL.M.C./1034/2016 of HARKIRAT SINGH Vs THE STATE

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 1034/2016

CORAM:

By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed that

FIR No.275/2015 under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘the Act’,for short) registered at P.S. IGI Airport on the complaint of Shri PrakashChand, Duty Manager Security, Jet Airways, IGI Airport, New Delhi, maybe quashed.

Brief facts are that petitioner has alleged that he is working as gold-miner and is working as Managing Director with M/s. Resources AfricaLimited and 79 Ventures Ltd. at Accra Ghana, West Africa. Petitioner ishaving valid gun licence no. 0012207 issued by the competent authority atAccra Ghana, West Africa. Petitioner commenced his journey from Accra

Ghana, West Africa. On 3[rd]July, 2015, petitioner was to board Jet AirwaysFlight no.9W0740 for going to Amritsar via Dubai and New Delhi.Petitioner reached at IGI Airport, New Delhi on 4[th]July, 2015. He was inthe terminal area, waiting for the Jet Airways flight no. 9W0740, for goingto Amritsar. He was still transit passenger. Petitioner was informed thatthree live cartridges were there in his checked-in baggage. Petitioner wasnot aware of the presence of live cartridges in his baggage, which he keptlying in his baggage, when he began his journey from Ghana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner wasnot in ‘conscious possession’ of the three live cartridges.During theinvestigation, petitioner had handed over the copy of the arms licence to theInvestigating Officer. Presently, petitioner is on bail. He is in Ghana, wherehe is working.

He has placed reliance on Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI,Bombay, MANU/SC/0554/1994, Nurit Toker vs. The State of Maharashtra,2012 Bom CR (Cri) 154, William Michael Hurtubise vs. The State ofOdisha and Ors. MANU/OR/0016/2014, Gunwantlal vs. The State ofMadhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0130/1972 and Gaganjot Singh vs. State,MANU/DE/3227/2014 to contend that ingredients of offence under Section

25 of the Arms Act are not attracted in absence of the ‘conscious possession’of the cartridges.

The plea taken by the petitioner is plausible plea that when hestarted his journey, he did not notice the live cartridges, which were lying inthe handbag. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 25 of the Act, it isnecessary that accused is in ‘conscious possession’ of the arms andammunition. In this case, there is nothing to indicate that petitioner was in‘conscious possession’ of the three live cartridges, which were recovered atthe IGI Airport from his checked-in baggage.

In Sanjay Dutt (supra), Supreme Court held, thus, “the meaning of thefirst ingredient of ‘possession’ of any such arms etc. is not disputed. Eventhough the word ‘possession’ is not preceded by any adjective like‘knowingly’, yet it is common ground that in the context the word‘possession’ must mean possession with the requisite mental element, thatis, conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of thenature of such possession.There is mental element in the concept ofpossession.” During the investigation, no material could be collected by theInvestigating Officer to show that the petitioner was in conscious possessionof the three live cartridges.

For the foregoing reasons, FIR No.275/2015 under Sections 25/54/59

of the Act registered at P.S. IGI Airport and the consequent proceedingsemanating therefrom, are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

AUGUST 23, 2017/rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.