Possession Of Solitary Cartridge Is A Minor Ammunition Protected U/s. 45(D) Of Arms Act: Delhi HC Reiterates
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a single cartridge is considered a minor form of ammunition protected under Clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms Act, 1959 (AA).
The Court quashed an FIR against the Individual carrying a single live cartridge in his check-in bag. The Court noted that the Petitioner was unaware of its presence and had unintentionally carried it in their bag while traveling.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “Arvinder Singh vs. State 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3320 has held that when only a single cartridge or bullet is found in the possession of the offender, without any other suspicious circumstances, such possession shall not be enough to prosecute the offender, as a solitary cartridge is a minor ammunition, which is protected under clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms Act, 1959”.
Advocate Aman Nandrajog appeared for the Petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Vikram Singh appeared for the Respondent.
In 2016, while the Petitioner was travelling from Delhi to Riyadh on Air India Flight AI-925, one live cartridge was discovered during a security check in his check-in bag. The Petitioner was unable to provide a valid explanation, so the Air India Senior Security Superintendent filed a complaint. The Petitioner filed a Petition seeking to quash the FIR registered under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the AA.
The Petitioner asserted that he was a businessman and had recently attended a wedding at the home of a long-time family friend. Mohammad Nazim (family friend) held a valid arms license from the State of Uttar Pradesh and had shown the Petitioner guns and bullets during their stay. During this time, a cartridge ended up in the Petitioner’s bag without their knowledge. The Petitioner argued that they had no idea the cartridge was there and blamed their failure to disclose this information during the investigation due to panic and fear.
The Court reiterated the importance of establishing ‘conscious possession’ of a weapon when prosecuting under the AA and referred to the cases of Gunwant Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [(1972) 2 SCC 194] and Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI Bombay (II) Crimes [1994 (3) 344 (SC)]. The Court noted that possessing a weapon is not enough but must also be accompanied by mens rea or intent.
“It has been held in a plethora of judgments including in Gunwant Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 194 and Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI Bombay (II) Crimes 1994 (3) 344 (SC), that “conscious possession” is the most significant ingredient for prosecution under the Arms Act, 1959. The possession herein is not mere custody of the arms but such possession supported by mens rea or intention”, the Court noted
The Court also cited the case of Chan Hong Saik Thr. Spa: Arvinder Singh vs. State [2012 SCC OnLine Del 3320], and observed that only one live cartridge was found on the Petitioner and that he was unaware of its presence and had unintentionally carried it in their bag while travelling.
Furthermore, the Court held that the FIR has been pending for seven years, and the police have been involved for a significant time. Therefore, the Petitioner should contribute to society by doing some social good.
The Court directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,000/- with the Regimental Fund Account, Assam, within a period of one week from the date of the Order.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition and quashed the FIR.
Cause Title: Mohd. Nazim v State
