CRL.M.C./420/2016 of ESA KOROLAINEN Vs STATE, NCT OF DELHI

$~22*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 420/2016

ESA KOROLAINEN..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.AmitSinghChauhan,Mr.Deepak Thakur and Mr. VaibhavChaudhary, Advs.

versus

STATE, NCT OF DELHI

..... RespondentThrough:Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP with SIRajiv Gulati Kumar, P.S. IGI Airport

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R23.08.2017

By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed thatFIR No. 0021/2016 under SectionS 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘theAct’, for short) registered at P.S. IGI Airport, may be quashed.

Brief facts are that petitioner is National of Finland. He is thedirector of company named Elemantic(Finland) which deals in productionand marketing of precast moulds and machineries and has its subsidiary unitat Alwar,Rajasthan because of which the petitioner is frequent traveller to

India. He was travelling from Delhi to Pune on 13[th]January,2016 by FlightNo.9W 0365. On screening of his baggage by the X-ray machine at the IGIairport, one live cartridge of (308 WIN SAKO 14 calibre) was recoveredfrom his handbag. Consequently, aforesaid FIR was registered at PoliceStation IGI Airport on the complaint of SI Santosh Kumar Yadav. Thematter is pending investigation and charge-sheet has not been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has avalid arms licence issued by the competent authority of Finland(AnnexureP/4). He was carrying arms and ammunition, pursuant to the said licence. Itis further submitted that live cartridge remained in the handbag inadvertentlywhen he started his journey from Finland. He had gone through severalsecurity checks at multiple airports and was not aware of its presence in hishandbag until it was detected at the IGI Airport. Petitioner was not in‘conscious possession’ of live cartridge. Therefore, ingredients of Section25 of the Act are not attracted. Reliance has been placed on Sanjay Dutt vs.State through CBI, Bombay, MANU/SC/0554/1994, Nurit Toker vs. TheState of Maharashtra, 2012 Bom CR (Cri) 154, William Michael Hurtubisevs. The State of Odisha and Ors. MANU/OR/0016/2014, Gunwantlal vs. theState of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0130/1972 and Gaganjot Singh vs.

State, MANU/DE/3227/2014.

Status report has been filed by the State. Learned APP has admittedthat petitioner holds valid licence issued by the competent authority.Meaning thereby, petitioner could have possessed the arms and ammunitionwithin the territorial bounds of Finland. Case of the petitioner is that one livecartridge remained in his handbag inadvertently, which he did not noticewhen he started his journey and came to know about it only at the airport.The plea taken by the petitioner is plausible plea. There is nothing toindicate that petitioner was in ‘conscious possession’ of live cartridge,which was recovered at the IGI Airport from his handbag.

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 live cartridge.

For the foregoing reasons, FIR No. 0021/2016 under Sections25/54/59 of the Act registered at P.S. IGI Airport, which is at theinvestigation stage, is quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

AUGUST 23, 2017rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.