Del HC | FIR under Arms Act, 1959 quashed in light of unconscious possession of ammunition

Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., disposed of a petition filed against the FIR filed for offences punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, wherein it held that,

“The possession of the ammunition was unconscious and there was no threat to anyone.”

In the present case, the petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959.

The above-said FIR was filed by the petitioner pertaining to the following facts; petitioner was travelling from Delhi to Amsterdam, when 01 ammunition was recovered from his handbag subsequent to which FIR was registered.

Petitioner stated that since he had to rush to Delhi from his native Punjab to reach on time for his flight he got the handbag without thoroughly checking the contents and therefore he himself could not have known the presence of the cartridge in his luggage/hand baggage. Further, it duly verified and mentioned by the petitioner during the IO investigation that the said cartridge belonged to the petitioner and he had Arms License valid in Punjab.

Advocate Jaspreet Singh Rai, representing the petitioner, relied on the decision of Chan Hong Sai v. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3320, wherein it was held that, “A Single cartridge without a firearm is minor ammunition which is protected under clause (d) of Section 45 of the Arms Act.” Though the larger bench did not agree with the above opinion and stated that the possession of the ammunition was unconscious and there was no arm with the accused and there was no threat to anyone, thus the Court rightly quashed the FIR.

Decision

In the present case, High Court relying on the above facts and circumstances stated it is not the case of the prosecution that there was firearm recovered from the petitioner or there was any threat to anyone at the Airport.

Thus, the Court quashed the FIR in the present case and held that “possession of the ammunition was unconscious and there was no threat to anyone.” [Baljit Singh Chahal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10989, decided on 07-11-2019]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.