Recovery of Single Live Cartridge Without Corresponding Firearm Or Conscious Possession Cannot Sustain Prosecution U/S 25 Arms Act: Delhi High Court
The Bench noted that "possession" under Section 25 of the Act, requires the requisite mental element of conscious awareness, and that mere custody without knowledge of such possession does not constitute an offence under the Act.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that criminal prosecution under the Arms Act,1959 cannot be sustained in the absence of a proven mental element or guilty knowledge, emphasizing that physical custody alone without awareness does not constitute an offense.
The Court noting the doctrine of "conscious possession”, and the term "possession" under Section 25 of the Arms Act said that it requires a mental element coupled with awareness, rather than mere inadvertent custody. Because no corresponding firearm was recovered and no suspicious circumstances pointed to a design to threaten public safety, the continuation of the trial amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.
A Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja noting precedents on the subject matter, observed, “…where the accused is not in conscious possession of the ammunition/live cartridge, he or she cannot be proceeded for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In the present case, only one single live cartridge was recovered from the baggage of the petitioner without any corresponding arms. Further, no suspicious circumstances have been pointed out in the FIR, which would indicate that the possession of the cartridge was conscious”.
Advocate Shrey Sharawat appeared for the petitioner and Raghuinder Verma, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
As per the facts, on June 9, 2022, during the physical search of passenger Damera Ram Sudhakar Rao’s bag for Indigo flight 6E-2104 from Delhi to Hyderabad, security recovered a single ammunition cartridge. When asked for valid documents, he stated the baggage belonged to his co-passenger, Lingamally Veera Gopal Rao, as they were traveling together and checked their luggage as a group.The passenger stated that the baggage belonged to the petitioner. Following ballistic confirmation and sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, a charge sheet was filed.
Subsequently, the petitioner approached the High Court invoking Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking quashing of a case registered at Police Station IGI Airport along with the consequential criminal case pending before the Patiala House Courts.
The Bench, noted that, “The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner was in ‘conscious possession’ of the ammunition, allegedly recovered from him or not. A perusal of Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 shows that the term ‘possession’ refers to the possession backed by the requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession. Therefore, mere custody, without being aware of such possession does not constitute an offence under the Arms Act”.
In the operative directions, the Court directed complete quashing of the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and the termination of criminal case pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, New Delhi.
Cause Title: Lingamally Veera Gopal Rao v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9329).
Appearances:
Petitioner: Shrey Sharawat, Ayush Tanwar, Ketan Saxena, and Pradhee Dhingra, Advocates.
Respondent: Raghuinder Verma, Additional Public Prosecutor, with SI Rajesh Kumar, Police Station IGI Airport.