Delhi High Court – Orders
Vedprakash Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 December, 2024
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2729/2024 & CRL. M.A. 26765/2024
VEDPRAKASH SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Malik and Mr. Anubhav
Mehrotra, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
with the Investigating Officer, PS-IGI
Airport.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 23.12.2024
1. The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”), [earlier Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”)] read with Article
226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
seeking quashing of FIR bearing No. 0530/2024, registered at Police Station
– I.G.I. Airport, Delhi for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter “Arms Act“).
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the petitioner, are that the petitioner
along with his friend Mr. Vivek Singh were scheduled to travel from Delhi
to Jammu via Air India Flight bearing no. AI821 for a wedding, which is to
be held on 23rd July, 2024. The petitioner and his friend were carrying a
joint lugguage and the petitioner was carrying a bag which belong to his
friend‟s mother i.e., Mrs. Kamlesh Singh, who holds a valid Arms License.
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 30/12/2024 at 21:11:46
It is stated that the petitioner used the said luggage for travel purpose
without checking the bag and upon reaching the Airport, the petitioner came
to know that the bag contained 04 live catridges due to the physical
verification of the baggage. Based on the same, the aforesaid FIR was
registered against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was unaware of the presence of live cartridges in the aforesaid
luggage until the same was detected by the security personnel during his
security check at the Airport. Thus, it is submitted that his case duly falls
under the ambit of “unconscious possession”. It is also submitted that he
was not carrying any weapon or fire arm and that the said live catridges
belong to the mother of petitioner‟s friend. It is further submitted that
mother of petitioner‟s friend held a valid arms license which was valid till
4th February, 2026.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the
judgement passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Gunwantlal v. State of
M.P., (1972) 2 SCC 194, and GolapSaikia v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2017)
2 JCC 1107 and submitted to the effect that the necessary ingredient of
conscious possession has to be fulfilled for constitution of an offence under
Section 25 of the Arms Act, and thus, the petitioner has not committed any
offence as alleged in the instant FIR.
5. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the
instant FIR may be quashed.
6. Per Contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently
opposed the instant petition and submitted that the same may be dismissed
being bereft of any merits. However, he has not contradicted the fact that 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 30/12/2024 at 21:11:46
Arms License is genuine and is in the name of Ms. Kamlesh Singh.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed
on record.
8. The petitioner has contested that the instant FIR may be quashed on
the ground that the petitioner was unaware about the possession of the
recovered ammunition and thus, offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act
is not made out and against him.
9. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to discuss the law qua
the meaning of conscious possession in the context of Section 25 of the
Arms Act.
10. It is pertinent to state that the ingredient of possession under Section
25 of the Arms Act includes the factor of a mental element and the same is a
pre-requisite to establish a case under the aforesaid provision as mere
custody without awareness of the said possession does not constitute an
offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
11. It is relevant to state that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in various cases
has categorically observed the aforesaid principle. In Gunwantlal v. State of
M.P., (Supra), the Constitutional Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has
observed as follows:
“5……. The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act in our
view must have, firstly the element of consciousness or
knowledge of that possession in the person charged with such
offence and secondly where he has not the actual physical
possession, he has nonetheless a power or control over that
weapon so that his possession thereon continues despite
physical possession being in someone else. If this were not so,
then an owner of a house who leaves an unlicensed gun in that
house but is not present when it was recovered by the police
can plead that he was not in possession of it even though heThis 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 30/12/2024 at 21:11:47
had himself consciously kept it there when he went out.
Similary, if he goes out of the house during the day and in the
meantime some one conceals a pistol in his house and during
his absence, the police arrives and discovers the pistol, he
cannot be charged with the offence unless it can be shown that
he had knowledge of the weapon being placed in his house.
And yet again if a gun or firearm is given to his servant in the
house to clean it, though the physical possession is with him
nonetheless possession of it will be that of the owner. The
concept of possession is not easy to comprehend as writers of
Jurisprudence have had occasions to point out. In some cases
under Section 19(1)(f) of the Arms Act, 1878 it has been held
that the word “possession” means exclusive possession and the
word “control” means effective control but this does not solve
the problem. As we said earlier, the first precondition for an
offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of intention,
consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed the
firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and
secondly that possession need not be physical possession but
can be constructive, having power and control over the gun,
while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it
subject to that power and control….”
12. Furthermore, the above stated principle was also reiterated by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sonam Chaudhary v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi), 2016 SCC OnLine Del 47, wherein the FIR pertaining to
the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was quashed and it was held
that live cartridge recovered was an inadvertent oversight and the petitioners
therein were unaware of the said possession, therefore, it does not fall
within the purview of conscious possession.
13. Therefore, the aforesaid judicial dictum reflects that the law with
respect to conscious possession is well settled as the same is a pre-requisite
and an essential ingredient to be established upon recovery of ammunition
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 30/12/2024 at 21:11:47
to constitute an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances ad well as the law
discussed above, this Court is of the view that the recovery of the
ammunition in question was without the knowledge of the petitioner and
therefore, the essential ingredient for constituting an offence under Section
25 of the Arms Act is not established.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the no fruitful
purpose will be served by punishing the petitioner for being in an
unconscious possession of a four live cartridges without firearm.
16. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, as well as the
above discussion of law, this Court finds sufficient reasons to allow the
present petition and quash the FIR registered under Section 25 of the Arms
Act.
17. Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 0530/2024, registered at Police Station
I.G.I. Airport, for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act
and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
18. The petition alongwith pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J
DECEMBER 23, 2024
NA/mk
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 30/12/2024 at 21:11:47
[ad_1]
Source link