CRL.M.C./2907/2017 of SATNAM KAUR Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 2907/2017

SATNAM KAUR

..... Petitioner

Through:Ms. Upasana Nath, Adv.

Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Through:

..... Respondent

Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SI ArunKumr, P.S. IGI Airport.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R31.10.2017

Two live cartridges of KF 32 2 & WL calibre were recovered from

the hand bag of the petitioner at the IGI Airport, New Delhi on 9[th]January,2016, which had led to registration of FIR No. 14/2016 under Section 25 ofthe Arms Act at police station IGI Airport on the complaint of ASI JayantaBiswas, CISF posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi. Petitioner has prayed forquashing of present FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is widow

who is settled in Washington, United States of America. Petitioner is NRIand had come to India to visit her relatives and also to attend marriage inJalandhar, Panjab.On 9[th]January, 2016, petitioner was returning to

Washington by Flight No. OZ 768 when two live cartridges were recoveredfrom her hand bag at the checking area of the Airport.

It is the case of the petitioner that during the aforementioned marriageat Jalandhar, petitioner’s nephew gave her his licenced arms and somecartridges to keep the same in her hand bag. After the marriage she returnedthe arms and ammunition (cartridges) to her nephew.However, two livecartridges remained lying in her hand bag inadvertently which petitioner didnot notice at that time. Petitioner was not in ‘conscious possession’ of thetwo live cartridges recovered from her bag in the security check area of theAirport. No evidence could be collected by the Investigating Officer duringthe investigation to show that petitioner was in ‘conscious possession’ of thecartridges.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on Sanjay Dutt vs. State throughCBI, Bombay, MANU/SC/0554/1994, Nurit Toker vs. The State ofMaharashtra, 2012 Bom CR (Cri) 154, William Michael Hurtubise vs. TheState of Odisha and Ors. MANU/OR/0016/2014, Gunwantlal vs. The Stateof Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0130/1972 and Gaganjot Singh vs. State,MANU/DE/3227/2014 to contend that ingredients of offence under Section25 of the Arms Act are not attracted in absence of the ‘conscious possession’

of the cartridges by the petitioner.

The plea taken by the petitioner is plausible plea that when she wasreturning to Washington she did not notice the live cartridges, which werelying in her handbag. In order to attract the ingredients of Section 25 of theAct, it is necessary 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 two live cartridges, which were recovered atthe IGI Airport from her hand bag.

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, aforesaid FIR and the consequent

proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed. Petition is disposed of in theabove terms. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.

Dasti.

OCTOBER 31, 2017ga

A.K. PATHAK, J.