Delhi High Court - Orders
Ashish Rana vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 12 April, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1967/2020
ASHISH RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aamir Chaudhary, Mr. Hasan
Raze Khan and Mr. Irfan Firdaus,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for State
with SI Satish Kumar Yadav, P.S. IGI
Airport.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 12.04.2022
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 242/2020 registered at Police Station IGI Airport for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the FIR are that on 26th October 2020, the Petitioner was travelling from New Delhi to Guwahati by Indigo Flight number 6E-2192. Subsequently while checking in at the airport during security check, 02 number of live cartridges on measurement, the length of the live cartridges was found to be 06 CM and the diameter of the bottom of bullet was 01 cm. On the bottom of both the cartridges "KF 10 5.56" is engraved written on the bottom of the each rounds respectively were Signature Not Verified Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA W.P.(CRL) 1967/2020 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:14.04.2022 12:10:33 detected in the tagged baggage of the applicant. The petitioner immediately told the security personals present at the spot that he was unaware about the presence of the cartridges in his baggage and did not tried to conceal or run from the spot. During the course of investigation the petitioner showed his armed forces ID card and explained the Investigating Officer of the case that he is a SSB personal and it is most likely that these cartridges are the same which he had found during patrolling when he was posted at Insurgent area of Assam Bangladesh border and later the applicant forgot where he kept these cartridges and the IO also deferred his arrest believing the fact that he was unaware about the presence of live cartridges in his baggage.
3. The petitioner kept these cartridges in his bag during the patrolling and later on due to the heavy pressure of the nature of duty forgot as to where has he kept the said cartridges as they have to patrol long boundary lines of Indian border. Later on the said cartridges were detected in the baggage he had brought with him while departing from his home without knowing the fact that the bullets were inside the baggage and in a hurry without making proper sweeping of the bag stuffed his belongings as he was unaware about presence of the said cartridges in the bag and arrived at the Airport.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, to strengthen his arguments, has relied on the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in "Chan Hong Siak through Arvinder Singh vs. State & Anr, Crl.M.C No. 3576/2011" decided on 2nd July, 2012. He further relied on the case of "Adhiraj Singh Yadav vs. State, W.P. (Crl) 754/2020" decided on 31st December, 2020. He has also relied on the judgment passed by the Bombay Signature Not Verified Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA W.P.(CRL) 1967/2020 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:14.04.2022 12:10:33 High Court in "Jerusalem vs. State of Maharashtra, W.P. (Crl) 3569/2011".
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the facts and laws laid down by this Court as well as other High Courts, aforesaid FIR and other proceedings pertaining to the said FIR may be quashed.
6. Per contra, Ms. Kamna Vohra, learned ASC for State vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was detected carrying 2 bullets in his hand baggage. However, it is not contended that there are any criminal antecedents of the petitioner and petitioner was assigned Insas Rifle and the Cartridges while he was posted in Assam on patrolling duty. He had then misplaced the said cartridges and they have been recovered from his baggage.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the status report filed today in the Court.
8. In Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (II), Crimes 1994 (3) 344 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"20. The meaning of the first ingredient of "possession" of any such arms etc. is not disputed. Even though the word 'possession' is not preceded by any adjective like 'knowingly', yet it is common ground that in the context the word 'possession' must mean possession with the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession. There is a mental element in the concept of possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of 'possession' in Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious possession. This is how the ingredient of possession in similar context of a statutory offence importing strict liability on account of mere possession of an unauthorized substance has been understood."Signature Not Verified Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA W.P.(CRL) 1967/2020 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:14.04.2022 12:10:33
9. This Court has in several cases including Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Singh v. The State (GNCT of Delhi) & Anr., W.P. (Crl) 2143/2019 decided on 27th September, 2019, Aruna Chaudhary v. State & Ors., W.P. (Crl.) 1975/2019 decided on 25th September, 2019 and Paramdeep Singh Sran v. The State (NCT of Delhi), W.P. (Crl) 152/2019 decided on 29th August, 2019, held that unconscious possession would not attract the rigours of the Arms Act, 1959.
10. In the instant case, petitioner was in possession of two live cartridges/bullets, without any arms, which would have served no purpose in isolation. Moreover, neither there was an element of knowledge of possession of cartridge nor any underlying criminal intention. As per the status report, during the course of investigation it was revealed that while he was posted in Assam on patrolling duty, he misplaced the said cartridges and now they have been recovered from his baggage. It is also an admitted fact that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and the judgments discussed above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition. Accordingly, FIR No. 242/2020 registered at Police Station IGI Airport for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station IGI Airport and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J APRIL 12, 2022 Aj/ct Signature Not Verified Signed By:GAURAV SHARMA W.P.(CRL) 1967/2020 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:14.04.2022 12:10:33