Petitioner quashed FIR for possessing a bullet left in carry-on luggage inadvertently while transiting from USA to Indonesia. Court held lack of conscious possession negates offense under Arms Act. Petition allowed.
FIR no. 339/2024 registered under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~63
versus
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP for the State SI Mukesh Kumar, PS IGI Airport
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
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 18/07/2024 at 14:26:17
New Delhi on 11.05.2024 and upon finding the bullet in his bag, the concerned officer seized the recovered ammunition and lodged the impugned FIR.
“5….The possession of a firearm under theArms 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 he had himself consciously kept it there when he went out. Similarly, if
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 18/07/2024 at 14:26:17
he goes out of the house duringthe day and in the meantime someone 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. Andyet 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….”
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 18/07/2024 at 14:26:17
in the United States of America, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JULY 9, 2024/ rb..
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 18/07/2024 at 14:26:17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 can be maintained when the petitioner claims inadvertent possession without conscious knowledge of the weapon.
Whether continuing the prosecution proceedings against a young person for inadvertently carrying a bullet constitutes futility and is against the ends of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gunwant Lal v. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶6
Gunwant Lal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194 · Who else cites this
Namanpreet S. Dhillon v. StateReferred¶6
Namanpreet S. Dhillonv. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2255 · Who else cites this
Dildar Singh v. State of NCT of DelhiReferred¶6
DildarSingh v. State of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL.) 2393/2021
Jobanjit Singh Johal v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.Referred¶6
Jobanjit Singh Johal v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., CRL.MC. 4956/2023
Sanjay Dutt v. StateRelied on¶7
Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ANAY LADDHA
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
