Allowed

Naeem Mirza v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Feb 2026CRLP/8673/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a US-based hunter with an Illinois firearm licence, was prosecuted after a single live .30 calibre cartridge was found in his checked baggage with no firearm on him. Relying on Gunwantlal's requirement of conscious possession, the High Court held the material fell short and quashed the pending calendar case.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 2050 of 2020 quashed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Naeem Mirza Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IUONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CRIMIN PET ITION NO: 8673 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Naeem Mirza, S/o Mirza Anwarullah Baig, Age 67 yrs, occ Business, rlo 311 Aberdour LN, Napervillae, lL, 60540, USA.

¶8

AND

¶9

....PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

The State of relangana, The sHo., RGI Airport p s, cyberabad, Ranga E".ddy^{District, Representedby The Public Prosecutor HlgfrCourt of -} Telangana

¶11

2 Sri Chandar shekar Janapareddy, s/o Trimurthulu, Agre 37^yrs Occ Duty l/anager HBS, GHIAL Security and vigilence, r/o H.No 51341, Flat No 203, Shyamsunder Residency,Chintal, Hydbrabad.

¶12

.....RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash /Set Aside the charge Sheet filed in C.C. No. 2OSO of 2O2O on the file of XIV Additional lVletropolitan tVlagistrate, Rajender Nagar Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay/suspend the proceedings in the charge Sheet filed in CC No 2050 of 2020 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajender Nagar Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the tVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri tVlD IVIURTUZA ALI FARUQUI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the E.GANESH Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

IN THE I{IGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶19

THIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶20

Criminal Petition No.8673 ot 2024

¶21

DATE: O9.02.2026

¶22

Between:,

¶23

Naeem Mirza, S/o. [Mirza Anwarullah Baig Age 67 years, Occ : Business, R/o. 311 Aberdour LN, Napervillae, lL, 60540, USA

¶24

. . . Petitioner/Accused

¶25

AND

¶26

The State of Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad througlr PS RGI Airport and another

¶27

...Respondents

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS'), seeking cluashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 2050 of 2020 on the file of the learned xlv Additional tMetropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶30

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 26.12.2017, while an employee of Rajiv Gandhi lnternational

¶31

¶32

Airport, Shamshabad, was screening baggage at the in-line baggage screening system, one live ammunition of calibre 0.30 (S&B 30.06 SPRG) was detected in the bag of the petitioner, who was travelling to Dubai by an Emirates flight. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner had not declared the presence of the said ammunition at the check-in counter Though the petitioner was found to be in possession of a firearm licence and Firearm Owner's ldentification Card issued by the State of lllinois, USA, he was not carrying any valid authorization to possess or carry ammunition in lndia. Consequently, Crime No. 799 of 2017 came to be registered under Section 25(18)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a professional hunter and'is lawfully authorized to carry firearms and ammunition under licences issued by the State of lllinois, USA. However, due to inadvertence, the relevant documents could not be produced before the authorities at the relevant point of time. lt is further contended that the petitioner had no knowledge of the presence of the live cartridge in his baggage and that the same had remained

¶34

¶35

therein b'1 mistake.^{Learned counselfurther submits that mere} possession of a single live cartridge, in the^{absence of any} firearm, does not constitute^{possessionof a weaponor an} article carpable of causing^{danger. lt is also contendedthat,} having regard to the^{absence of conscious possession,aS} recognize>d by the Constitution^{Bench,in Gunwantlal V. State} of Madhya Prade.sh', where a^{life cartridge was found in the} baggage the High Court of^{Kerala in Shantanu YadavRao} Hire Vs. State of Kerala and another^{passedin Crl.MC'} No.922 c,f 2023, dated 28.03.2023^{and the High court of Delhi} in Narendra Kumar Gupta^{Vs. Sfafe of NCT of Delhipassed} in W.P. lCrl.) 74412021, dated^{18.05.2021have quashedthe} proceedi,tgs. Thus, prayed for indulgence of this^{Court and} quash th,e proceedings of the^pending Calendar^Case.

¶36

Le'arned Additional Public Prosecutgr submits^{that the} petitione. was found in possession of one live cartridge of .30 calibre irr his baggage. The investigation^{further revealed that} the petitioner holds a licence issued^{by the State of Illinois for} hunting purposes and that, out of two^{roundsof ammunition}

¶37

'1tstz12^soc194

¶38

¶39

purchased by him, one cartridge was kept in his bag, allegedly to show it to his sister-in-law. lt is submitted that possession of ammunition in lndia without a valid licence or authorization constitutes an offence under the Arms Act. Accordingly, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for illegal possession of ammunition. However, with regard to the issue of conscious possession and in view of the settled legal position governing judicial scrutiny at the stage of considering the material on record, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays that appropriate orders be passed by this Court.

¶40

I have perused the material on record

¶41

The fact that one live cartridge of calibre 0.30 was detected in the baggage of the petitioner on 26.12.2017 is not in dispute. lt is also undisputed that the investigation revealed that the petitioner holds a licence issued by the State of lllinois, USA, permitting him to possess firearms and ammunition for hunting purposes. lt is further evident that no firearm or any other weapon capable of using the said ammunition was found in the possession of the petitioner along with the cartridge. ti.

¶42

¶43

the given facts and circumstances, the alleged liability of the petitioner arises solely on account of possession of a live cartridge, which forms the basis for prosecution under section 25(1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶44

The specific stand taken by the petitioner is that atthough the live <;artridge was found in his baggage, he was not in conscious; possession of the same, as he was unaware of its presence, and that the cartridge had inadvertentty remained in the bagga,ge.

¶45

The scope and meaning of the expression ',possession,, occurring in Section 25 of the Arms Act has been authoritatively considered by a constitution Bench of the Hon'ble s,upreme court in Gunwanttat (supra) in paragraph

¶46

No.S held as under:

¶47

"The llossession of a firearm under the Arms Act in our view rnust have, firstly the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in the person charged with s;uch offence and secondly where he has not the actual physical possession, he has none-the-less a power or control over that weapon so that his posse:;sion thereon continues despite physical possession being in someone else. If this were not so. ; -' then in by tha,: house the an owner police can plead but is not of a house that present who he leaves was when not in an unlicensed it was possession recoveredeunof

. ''":ilqti4l.t

( '..

it even though he had himserf consciousry kept it there when he wenr out. Similarlf,^-ii nu goes out of the house during the day and in'th'" ,"untime someone conceats a pistot in tris house uno arrin; h; I[r"n.", the porice arrives and discor..r tnl pistol he cannot be charged wirh the offence ;;6; ii can be shown that he ffijrJi"*redse^{or the ;;il;beins- ;i";; 'in-'n,,}

¶52

I Thus, it is crear that for the purposes of the Arms Act, "possession" must be ,,conscious possession," tn volving awareness and contror over the prohibited articre. [4ere physical custody, without knowredge or intention, does not satisfy the requirement of possession contemprated under the statute

¶53

10' ln the present case, in right of the foregoing discussion, it stands estabrished that the petitioner was found with a singre live cartridge of caribre 0.30 in his baggage, in isotation and without any corresponding firearm. tn such circumstance, considering the expranation offered by the petitioner, and significantly in the absence of any materiar on record to indicate that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the said cartridge or any erement suggest the existence of any criminal intent or knowredge attributabte to the petitioner virth.

¶54

¶55

respect tc the^{presenceof the cartridgein his baggage, it shall} be held that, the material on^{record is falling shortin} establishing the foundational^{requirementnecessary for} attractingt criminal liability^{under Section25 of the Arms Act,} 1959.

¶56

ln view of the aforesaid^{factual and legal position,this} Court is of the considered^{opinion that continuation of the} criminal^proceedings against^{the petitionerwould not result in} any fruitful consequence, and no useful^{purpose wouldbe} served by^permitting the^{prosecution to continue.}

¶57

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal^{Petition is} allowed, and the^{proceedings in C.C. No. 2050 of 2020 on the} file of tne learned XIV Additional^{MetropolitanMagistrate,} Rajendrernagar, Cyberabad, Ranga^{Reddy District, are hereby} quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand clgsed

¶58

H.S.GOWRI^SHANKAR SSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1. The XIV Add.itional lVletropolitan Magistrate, Rajender Nagar Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy'District

¶63

2.The Station Hrluse Officer, RGI Alrpo1t Police Station RGI Airport Cyberabad 3. One CC to Sttl. MD MURTUZA ALI FARUQUI Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CCs to P.tblic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telang-ana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶64

. ^^{5. Two CD Copies} '" lhLvtrl/PSL

¶65

HIGH COURT DATED:0910212026

¶66

ORDER CRLP.No.8673 of 2024

¶67

THE S
l)
U
2 0 [r8 zllilij
*
r<i *

¶68

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶69