CRL.M.C./3801/2017 of SCOTT R WILSON Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 3801/2017

SCOTT R WILSON

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Manu Shrama, Adv

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI..... RespondentThroughMr. M S Oberoi, APP for State

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R

%26.10.2017

By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed thatFIR No. 421/2015 under Sections 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘the Act’, forshort) registered at police station IGI Airport on the complaint of SI AliMurtaza of CISF IGI Airport, New Delhi, may be quashed.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was travelling from Delhi to

Bangalore by Jet Airways, Flight No.92235 on 23[rd]September, 2015.Petitioner is an American National. He had come to India for businesspurposes. His bag was scanned in pre-embarking section area, by thescanned personals, when one 99mm live cartridge was found therein.Petitioner failed to produce valid arms licence, consequently, FIR wasregistered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner wasnot aware about the presence of live cartridge in his bag.Live cartridgemight have remained lying in his bag when he commenced his journey from

USA. It was first time noticed at the airport when the petitioner was goingfrom New Delhi to Bangalore.It is contended that petitioner was not in‘conscious possession’ of the live cartridge, therefore, ingredients of offenceunder Section 25 of the Arms Act are not attracted. He has placed relianceon Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, Bombay, MANU/SC/0554/1994,Nurit Toker vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2012 Bom CR (Cri) 154, WilliamMichael Hurtubise vs. The State of Odisha and Ors. MANU/OR/0016/2014,Gunwantlal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0130/1972 andGaganjot Singh vs. State, MANU/DE/3227/2014.

The plea taken by the petitioner is plausible plea that when hestarted his journey, he did not notice the live cartridge in his bag. In order toattract the ingredient of offence under Section 25 of the Act, it is necessarythat accused is in ‘conscious possession’ of the arms and ammunition. Inthis case, there is nothing to indicate that petitioner was in ‘consciouspossession’ of solitary live cartridge, which was recovered at the IGIAirport 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

possession’ of the live cartridge.

For the foregoing reasons, FIR No. 421/2015 under Sections 25 of theArms Act, 1959 registered at police station IGI Airport and the consequentproceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

OCTOBER 26, 2017

A.K. PATHAK, J