Telangana High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed against the order dated 8-9-2015 (impugned order) wherein the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the discharge application against a man carrying live ammunition into Rajiv Gandhi International Airport Shamshabad, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi, held that mere recovery of ammunition without cogent proof of mens rea would not qualify as ‘conscious possession’ under the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act). Thus, the Court discharged the petitioner.
Background
Accused 2 gifted Accused 1 (the petitioner) 380 live ammunition for his birthday to use as a locket for a neck chain. The petitioner kept the live ammunition in his bag and subsequently went to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad to travel to Calcutta. At the airport, his bag was searched at security check and live ammunition was found in his bag.
An FIR for commission of offences under Section 25(1)(a) and (1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act) was registered on the basis of which the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad passed the impugned order dated 8-9-2015 dismissing the discharge application of the petitioner.
The instant criminal revision petition was filed assailing the impugned order.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the sole allegation against the petitioner was that he was found in possession of live ammunition. There was no further material indicating any misuse or unlawful intent associated with such possession.
The Court observed that Section 25(1)(a) essentially pertains to unauthorized dealings in arms and ammunition. On the other hand, Section 25(1A) specifically relates to the illegal possession, acquisition, or carrying of prohibited arms or ammunition in violation of Section 7 of the Act. Furthermore, Section 25 of the Act clearly indicates that the term ‘possession’ connotes conscious possession, and not mere inadvertent or unconscious possession. The essential requirement to constitute an offence under this provision is the existence of mens rea, i.e., knowledge of such possession or control over the firearm or ammunition.
The Court opined that in the instant case, there was no material on record to indicate that the petitioner had conscious knowledge of the possession of the live ammunition. Further, there was no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to suspect that the petitioner knowingly carried the said ammunition with the requisite mental intent.
Thereafter, the Court held that mere recovery of live ammunition, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing conscious possession or the requisite mens rea, was insufficient to attract the penal provisions of the Arms Act. Without any foundational material to substantiate that the petitioner was in conscious and knowing possession of the ammunition, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Magistrate and discharged the petitioner.
[Karan Sajnani v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 567, decided on 25-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Zainab Khan, Advocate
For the Respondent: S. Madhavi (APP)
