Delhi High Court – Orders
Baldev Singh Dhillon vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 1 May, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3004/2025
BALDEV SINGH DHILLON .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Devinder Singh & Mr. Satvinder
Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the
State.
SI Sunita Mann, P.S. IGI Airport.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 01.05.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CRL.M.A. 13357/2025
2. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
3. Application stand, disposed of accordingly.
CRL.M.C. 3004/2025
4. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed seeking quashing
of FIR No. 428/2022, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at
PS IGI Airport, New Delhi, along with all other consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom including the chargesheet pending in the Court of Sh.
Pranav Joshi, learned ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
5. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.10.2022 at 23:16 hours, the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 11:32:28
present petitioner, while travelling from Delhi to Paris by flight No. AF0225,
was called for the screening of his hand baggage by the complainant, a CISF
SI, and during the screening, an image of ammunition was noticed and the
said baggage was referred for physical check. The said baggage was then
identified by the present petitioner and physically checked by the complainant
in his presence and during the same, 01 live ammunition mark .32 S & W.L
Caliber was recovered from the hand baggage of the petitioner. It is the case
of the prosecution that the petitioner was not having any valid license in his
possession for carrying ammunition in his hand baggage. Thereafter, ruqqa
was prepared and sent for registration of FIR. During investigation, notice
under Section 41A of the CrPC was served to the petitioner and on
interrogation, he stated that he is a farmer by occupation and his son, Navjeet
Singh, is residing in Canada for past 4 years and his marriage was scheduled
on 16.10.2022 and to attend same, he along with his wife was travelling to
Canada and during security check, the complainant apprised him that there is
one live cartridge in the his hand baggage. The petitioner produced a valid
license of Punjab before the Investigating Officer. On completion of
investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of competent
jurisdiction for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Learned ACMM took cognizance of the offence alleged against the present
petitioner and issued summons to him vide order dated 29.07.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the latter was not aware
of the fact that there is a live cartridge in his hand baggage and the same was
apprised to him by the complainant during the checking itself. It is the case of
the petitioner that even otherwise, he holds a valid licence and during
investigation of the present FIR, the same was handed over to the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 11:32:28
Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the said licence of the
petitioner was found valid on verification and learned ACMM vide order
dated 29.07.2024 had erroneously taken cognizance of the offence alleged in
the chargesheet against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that mere
possession without conscious possession does not constitute an offence
punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Reliance has been placed on
order dated 23.04.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.(CRL) 1166/2025 titled as ‘Jatinder Singh v. State NCT of Delhi &
Anr.‘ wherein, a case involving similar facts, the Court had quashed the FIR.
Reliance has also been placed on Gunwant Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1972 SC 1756 and Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay, (1994)
5 SCC 410.
7. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the subject cartridge
was recovered from hand baggage of the present petitioner during checking
by the complainant and the same was not declared by him prior to his travel.
He further submits that when the petitioner was asked to show documents
pertaining to the possession of the ammunition, he was not able to provide the
same at the airport. It is further submitted that the licence produced by the
petitioner is restricted to the State of Punjab.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. As per the case of the prosecution, 01 live .32 bore cartridge was
recovered from the hand baggage of the petitioner, during the physical
checking, by the complainant at the airport. During the course of
investigation, the petitioner had produced before the Investigating Officer a
valid licence issued by Office of the District Magistrate, Barnala, Government
of Punjab, showing that the petitioner has been permitted to hold a weapon of
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 11:32:28
.32 Bore Revolver/Pistol which is valid till 2027 and was valid at the relevant
point of time, when the subject cartridge was recovered from the hand
baggage of the petitioner at IGI Airport, Delhi.
10. On a pointed query, learned APP for the State, on instructions of the
Investigating Officer, submitted that the licence of the petitioner, on
verification, was found valid and the same formed part of the chargesheet filed
before the concerned learned Trial Court.
11. In W.P.(CRL.) 754/2020 titled as ‘Adhiraj Singh Yadav v. State‘,
vide order dated 31.12.2020, Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed an FIR
registered in similar circumstances by observing as under: –
“12. In view of the above, it is well settled that an offence under
Section 25 of the Arms Act would not be made out in cases where the
suspect was not conscious that he was in possession of live
ammunition.
**** **** ****
14. This Court has in several cases held that unconscious possession
would not attract the rigours of the said Act. [See: Surender Kumar
@ Surender Kumar Singh v. The State (GNCT of Delhi) &Anr.:
W.P. (Crl) 2143/2019 decided on 27.09.2019; Aruna Chaudhary
v. State &Ors.: W.P. (Crl.) 1975/2019 decided on 25.09.2019 and
Paramdeep Singh Sran v. The State (NCT of Delhi) W.P.: (Crl)
152/2019 decided on 29.08.2019)].”
12. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Namanpreet S. Dillon v.
State, 2022:DHC:2864, while quashing a FIR wherein one cartridge was
recovered, had observed as under: –
“11. Extrapolating from the principles enunciated in the above
judgements, ‘conscious possession’ is a core ingredient to establish
the guilt for offences punishable under the Arms Act, 1959. Mere
possession without the awareness cannot make the accused liable of
the offence.
12.In the instant case, the claim of the Petitioner is that his Paternal
Uncle (Tayaji) Sh. Palwinder Singh Dhillon had an arms licence andThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 11:32:28
it was his cartridge that inadvertently remained in the pocket of his
trouser which was detected by the X-ray Machine at the Departure
Hall at the IGI Airport.
13.It is very much evident from the facts that the Petitioner was indeed
not in conscious possession of the cartridge but rather inadvertently
carried it with him during the X-ray Scan.
15.It is apparent from the facts of the case that only a single cartridge
has been recovered from the Petitioners and no other fire arm has been
recovered from him which makes it clear that the petitioner was not
having conscious possession of the live cartridge. This is a testament
to the fact that there was no animus possidendi.
16.In light of the mentioned judgements, where the facts are para
materia to the facts of the instant case and taking into account the fact
that the Petitioner was indeed not in conscious possession the FIR No.
0308/2021 dated 15.11.2021 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, at P.S
IGI Airport against the petitioner is hereby quashed and thus the
proceedings emanating there from against the petitioner are also
quashed.”
13. The petitioner is a valid licence holder in respect of .32 Bore weapon.
In the present case, the allegation is of carrying 01 live .32 Bore cartridge
without authorisation. The case of the petitioner is that he might have
inadvertently carried the same as he along with his wife was going to Canada
to attend the wedding of their son, who was residing there for the past 4 years.
The petitioner has been able to provide probable cause for possession of the
cartridge recovered from him. He holds a valid arms licence and there is no
reason to doubt that the recovered live cartridge was found on account of a
genuine mistake. The investigation in the present case is complete and the
chargesheet has been filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. As per
the final report, nothing has come on record to doubt the explanation given on
behalf of the petitioner.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, no
useful purpose will be served by continuing with FIR No. 428/2022, under
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 11:32:28
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at PS IGI Airport and all other
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom including the chargesheet
pending in the Court of Sh. Pranav Joshi, learned ACMM, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi.
15. The present petition is allowed and FIR No. 428/2022, under Section
25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at PS IGI Airport and all other
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom including the chargesheet
pending in the Court of Sh. Pranav Joshi, learned ACMM, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi, is hereby quashed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
17. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for
necessary information and compliance.
18. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J
MAY 01, 2025/nk/ns
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/06/2025 at 11:32:28