Mere custody of ammunition without awareness will not constitute offense U/S. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: High Court of Delhi
It is a well-settled law that where a person is not conscious of the ammunition in his possession, an offense under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 would not be made out. This was held in ARUN v.   THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI. [Bail Appln. 1528/2021] in the High Court of Delhi by a single bench consisting of JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT. Facts are that an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959.The writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Police Station of I.G.I. Airport, and all proceedings emanating from the same. The counsel for the petitioner submitted he was not in conscious possession of the live cartridge that was recovered from him whilst he was traveling from Delhi to Sri Lanka and had thereafter a connecting flight to Australia. He further submitted that the live cartridge of 0.32 mm calibre detected in Petitioner’s tagged baggage, was part of the baggage of his father used in the normal course of traveling and his father has a valid arms license. The learned ASC for State submitted that the Arms Licence issued in the name of petitioner’s father had been verified and the same was found to be genuine. The court made reference to the judgment of Delhi High court in Chan Hong Saik Vs. State and Anr. ,, wherein it was observed that “the court had quashed the FIR by holding that a single cartridge without a firearm is a minor ammunition which is protected under clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms Act.”. But the same was also referred to a larger bench of the court who had opined that “opined that single cartridge is ammunition and comes under the Arms Act, 1959. But  since the possession of the ammunition was unconscious and there was no arm with the accused and there was no threat to anyone, therefore this Court has rightly quashed the FIR” The court also made reference to the provision of Arms act and further reference to the judgment of Delhi High in Paramdeep Singh Sran v. The State (NCT of Delhi) W.P, wherein it was observed that “ Section 25 Arms Act was converted into Section 30 Arms Act as the Petitioner was holding a valid Arms License”.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28.05.2021 W.P.552 2021 GAURAV SACHDEVA Through Mr. Aamir Chaudhary Adv. Petitioner NCT OF DELHI &ANR. Respondent Through Mr. R.S. Kundu ASC for State HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT JUDGMENTCRL. M.A. 5356 2021 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(CRL.) 552 2021 The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 100 2019 registered at Police Station I.G.I. Airport for the offences punishable under Section 25 Arms Act 1959 and all proceedings emanating therefrom. W.P.(Crl.) 552 2021. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the live cartridge that was recovered from him whilst he was travelling from Delhi to Sri Lanka vide flight No.UL196 and had thereafter a connecting flight to Australia . He further submits that the live cartridge of 0.32 mm calibre detected in Petitioner s tagged baggage was part of the baggage of his father used in the normal course of travelling bearing No. DM FZR DUP FZRC 0118 11. During interrogation petitioner disclosed that his father has a valid arms license issued by the Government of Punjab. During further course of investigation petitioner produced a copy of his father’s Arms License bearing number DM FZR DUP FZRC 0118 11. Learned ASC for State submits that the aforesaid Arms Licence issued in the name of petitioner’s father has been verified and the same is found to be genuine. It is a well settled law that where a person is not conscious of the ammunition in his possession an offence of under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 would not be made out in view of judgments Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Singh vs. The State& Anr.: W.P.(Crl.) W.P.(Crl.) 552 2021. 2143 2019 decided on 27.09.2019 Aruna Chaudhary vs. State & Ors.: W.P.(Crl.) 1975 2019 decided on 25.09.2019 and Paramdeep Singh Sran v. The StateW.P.:(Crl.) 152 2019 decided on 29.08.2019) therefore Section 25 Arms Act was converted into Section 30 Arms Act as the Petitioner was holding a valid Arms License. The fact remains that this Court in Chan Hong Saik Vs. State and Anr. 2012DRJ 504in CRL.M.C. 3576 2011 ) quashed the FIR by holding that a single cartridge without firearm is a minor ammunition which is protected under clauseof Section 45 of the Arms Act. However the judgment delivered by this Court dated 02.07.2012 was referred to the larger Bench and vide judgment dated 06.01.2016 in case of Dharmendra vs. State in CRL.M.C. 4493 2015 the Court opined that single cartridge is ammunition and comes under the Arms Act 1959. The larger Bench referred above did not agree with the opinion of this Court but opined that since the possession of the ammunition was unconscious and there was no arm with the accused and there was no threat to anyone therefore this Court has rightly quashed the FIR. In the case in hand it is not the case of the prosecution that there was fire arm recovered from the petitioner or there was any threat to anyone at W.P.(Crl.) 552 2021. the Airport. 11. Thus in the present case also the possession of the ammunition was unconscious and there was no threat to anyone. 12. Accordingly for the reasons afore recorded FIR No. 100 2019 registered at Police Station I.G.I. Airport for the offences punishable under Section 25 Arms Act 1959 and all proceedings emanating therefrom 13. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. SURESH KUMAR KAIT) are hereby quashed. MAY 28 2021 rk W.P.(Crl.) 552 2021. 