Conviction U/S. 25 Arms Act Unsustainable Without Proof Of "Conscious Possession" Of Weapon: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, by the Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, which had sentenced the petitioner to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,000. The conviction and sentence had been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Vashisth, while deciding the matter, observed, “…considering the short distance involved and the fact that the petitioner was asleep during the journey, it is not reasonable to infer that he wilfully committed an offence by carrying the weapon in an unauthorized area without requisite permission. From the entirety of the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution, nothing has surfaced to demonstrate that the petitioner carried 01 pistol of .32 bore and 16 live cartridges with any unlawful intent or objective.”

Advocate S.P.S. Sidhu appeared for the petitioner, while APP Vaibhav Mittal represented the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

Background

As per the prosecution, the police claimed to have received wireless information that an individual was carrying illegal arms in a Chandigarh Transport Undertaking bus. A ‘naka’ was established where the petitioner was apprehended and found in possession of a .32 bore revolver and sixteen live cartridges.

The weapon was licensed in Punjab but not valid in Chandigarh. The prosecution argued that by carrying the firearm into Chandigarh, the petitioner violated Section 3(1) of the Arms Act. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicted him on this basis.

Court’s Observations

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act to be established, mere physical custody of a weapon is insufficient; it must be accompanied by proof of ‘conscious possession’ and intent.

The Bench cited Sonam Chaudhary v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), which had relied on the precedent laid down in Sanjay Dutt vs State Through C.B.I. Bombay, in which the Apex Court had ruled that, “the possession of a firearm under the Arms Act must have, firstly the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in the person charged with such offence… possession must mean possession with the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession.”

The Court further took note that the petitioner had purchased a bus ticket from Jalandhar to Phase 6, Mohali, within Punjab, where his license was valid. During the journey, he fell asleep and unintentionally crossed into Chandigarh. Considering this, the Court held that there was no conscious intent or unlawful objective in carrying the weapon beyond Punjab.

The Bench also pointed out that the prosecution had failed to produce any notification or government order as conclusive proof, observing that “…it was therefore the bounden duty of the prosecution to produce documentary evidence establishing that the location, where petitioner was apprehended with the firearm actually lies beyond the territorial limits of the State of Punjab. However, the prosecution has failed to lead any notification, circular, or government order to demonstrate that the naka was established outside the boundaries of Punjab.”

Justice Vashisth accordingly observed that, “in the absence of any proof of prior information, it cannot be presumed that the prosecution has any credible basis to allege willful disobedience of the provisions of the Arms Act.”

Conclusion

Allowing the revision petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the petitioner of all charges.

Cause Title: Amritpal Singh Versus The Union Territory Of Chandigarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHCHC:126212)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate S.P.S. Sidhu

Respondents: APP Vaibhav Mittal

Click here to read/download Judgment