The Delhi High court has held that mere custody of ammunition without conscious and knowledgeable possession does not amount to any offence under the Arms Act, 1959..The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anu Malhotra in a petition seeking to quash an FIR and other subsequent proceedings for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act..The petitioner, Hari Kishan was facing probe for the alleged possession of a live round of 8MM KF-91 on February 25, 2014, at the Saket Metro Station. The ammunition was recovered from the petitioner during a baggage check..The petitioner informed the Court that when the Metro officials informed him about the live cartridge, he was “shocked and surprised” as he did not have any knowledge about its presence in the side pocket of his bag. It was further stressed that the side pocket was half transparent and did not have any zip or lock..The petitioner submitted that even in the Police Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 there was no allegation of recovery of any firearm or any weapon of any kind from his possession. It was thus argued that provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 would not apply as it was a case of possession of minor parts of arms or ammunition which were not intended to be used along with complementary parts possessed by them..Lastly, the petitioner stated that the chargesheet also did not suggest that he had a conscious possession of the alleged cartridge..Based on these averments, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR, the summoning order as well as the charge sheet..Relying on a series of judgements passed by the High Court, the Court held that a whole live cartridge is clearly “a whole and an entire ammunition” in view of the inclusive nature of the definition under Section 2(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, and would thus fall outside the purview of Section 45(d)..Any interpretation to the contrary would be plainly contrary to the Act and erroneous, it recorded..The Court nonetheless noted that charges in such cases could be framed only when there is reasonable suspicion or sufficient material to show that the alleged offender has committed the offence under the Act..Coming to the facts of the present case, the Court concluded that no case was made out against the petitioner and there was no allegation of a conscious possession..“..there is not a whisper of an averment in the FIR as averred in the charge sheet that the petitioner was aware of being in alleged conscious and knowledgeable possession of the ammunition in question.”, the Court said..The Court thus quashed the FIR against the petitioner as well as the proceedings emanating from it..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Raj Singh..State was represented by APP Izhar Ahmad..[Read Order]
