W.P.(CRL)/1716/2017 of ANMOL RATTAN GUPTA Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 1716/2017

ANMOL RATTAN GUPTA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Varun Malik, Adv. with Mr.SatyaRanjan Swain, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

ThroughMr.R.S. Kundu, ASC with Mr.AnkitGulia & Mr.Harsh Chaudhary, Adv.SI Vasant Kumar PS IGI Airport.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%30.05.2017

Crl.M.A. 9505/2017

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(Crl.) No.1716/2017

The petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR No.537/2015 dated22.12.2015 (P.S.IGI Airport) instituted for the offences under Section 25Arms Act, 1959.

It is stated that the petitioner was scheduled to travel to Combodiaalong with his parents on vacation, on 22.12.2015. On the said date, whenhe was about to board the flight no- CZ-360 to Combodia from IGI Airport,Delhi, his baggage, upon search during check-in, was found to be containingone single live bullet of 45 AUTO (PMC) 03. Thereafter the subject F.I.R

was registered against him.

The petitioner is an Indian national, living in Chandigarh, Punjab whohas pursued his higher studies in U.S.A. During his stay in U.S.A., he usedto visit shooting range along with his cousin, Mr. Jaideep Sood. It is furthersubmitted that, after inquiry, it has been found that the bullet belonged toMr. Jaideep Sood, who is medical practitioner in U.S.A and has beenresiding there for the last 35 years.

It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the presenceof live bullet in his bag. The bullet was inadvertently, perhaps due tocarelessness, left in the bag. There is no intention of the petitioner to carrythe bullet with him.

The circumstances of the case make it very clear that merepossession of one live bullet and no further evidence, is insufficient forproving any charge against the petitioner. The petitioner is an educatedperson with no criminal antecedents.

One live bullet cannot be used for any purpose in the absence of thefirearm. For prosecution regarding possession of firearm under the ArmsAct, it needs to be proved that the accused had the knowledge orconsciousness of that possession. “Possession”, for the purposes ofprosecution must mean possession with the requisite mental element, i.e.conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness (refer toGunwantlal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1972 SC 1756; SanjayDutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay (II): (1994) 5 SCC 410).

It is settled law that the Courts can interfere at any stage forpreventing the abuse of the process of the Court and the only safe-guardagainst such use of power is that legitimate prosecution may not be stifled.

True it is that this Court cannot inquire into the reliability of the evidenceand sustainability of accusation but from the circumstances of this case, itwould only be futile exercise to keep the investigation of this case pendingwhen the petitioner has clean background.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied uponvarious orders passed by this Court in several other cases of similar nature.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court isof the opinion that for the possession of one live cartridge, without thefirearm, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of thesame. There does not appear to be even remote possibility of the policebringing in any further evidence regarding the intention of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts, this court is of the view that no usefulpurpose would be served in continuing with the investigation in this case.

Considering the aforesaid facts, FIR No.537/2015 dated 22.12.2015(P.S.IGI Airport) for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 and allthe emanating proceedings therefrom are quashed.

The petition is disposed of.

MAY 30, 2017ab

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J