Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Jolly Singh vs State on 19 October, 2023

                                    $~32
                                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    +        CRL.M.C. 3317/2021
                                             JOLLY SINGH                                                                    ..... Petitioner
                                                                                  Through:                 Mr. Manoj Godara, Advocate

                                                                                               versus

                                             STATE                                                                          ..... Respondent
                                                                                  Through:                 Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
                                                                                                           the State with SI Seetaram, PS.
                                                                                                           Domestic Airport
                                             CORAM:
                                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
                                                                                  ORDER

% 19.10.2023

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C.] seeking quashing of the FIR No.2/2020 dated 04.01.2020 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at PS: Domestic Airport, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. As per the FIR, on 04.01.2020, when the petitioner was travelling from Delhi to Guwahati on Indigo Flight bearing no.6E-889, she was found in possession of 01 cartridge (9mm) in her check-in baggage and upon questioning, could not give any valid reasons and justification for the same. The above led to the registration of the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a widow lady, aged 66 years, was not aware about the presence of said live cartridge in her baggage. He submits that the husband of the petitioner, CRL.M.C. 3317/2021 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/10/2023 at 00:29:32 who was employed in Intelligence Bureau had an Arms license while he was alive, but unfortunately he expired and probably the cartridge belonged to him and without any knowledge about its presence in the baggage, she carried the bag. Relying upon the judgement of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rasleen Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 187, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the cartridge and had no intention to carry the same and that only a solitary cartridge was found in her possession, without any firearm which does not prove that the petitioner had animus possidendi. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus prays that the present FIR be quashed.

4. Status Report has been filed by the respondent/ State stating therein that it has been verified that the late husband of the petitioner, Late Shri Mohinder Singh joined Intelligence Bureau on 31.12.1975. He was promoted to the rank DCIO/Exe. (equivalent to DSP) on 15.10.2004. He expired on 26.10.2005, while posted in the office of FRRO, Delhi, Bureau of Immigration and that he had a valid Arms licence.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State and have perused the relevant documents on record.

6. It has been held in a plethora of judgments including in Gunwant Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 194 and Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI Bombay (II) Crimes 1994 (3) 344 (SC), that "conscious possession" is the most significant ingredient for prosecution under the Arms Act, 1959. The possession herein is not mere custody of the arms but such possession supported by mens rea or intention.

7. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chan Hong Saik Thr.

CRL.M.C. 3317/2021 Page 2 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/10/2023 at 00:29:32 Spa: Arvinder Singh vs. State 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3320 has held that when only a single cartridge or bullet is found in the possession of the offender, without any other suspicious circumstances, such possession shall not be enough to prosecute the offender, as a solitary cartridge is a minor ammunition, which is protected under Section 45(d) of the Arms Act, 1959. This Court has also, in similar circumstances, vide order dated 17.08.2023 in CRL.M.C. 2697/2020 titled Mohd. Nazim v. State held that possession of a single cartridge/bullet in absence of any intention to carry the same does not constitute an offence.

8. In the present matter, only a single live cartridge was recovered from the petitioner, and she was not conscious of such possession leading to the conclusion that it was due to inadvertence that the cartridge remained in her baggage while she was travelling. Also, that the petitioner had no intention of carrying the single live cartridge with her in her baggage. Further, the petitioner herein is having clean antecedents with no previous involvement of any kind in any other complaint(s)/ FIR(s). Taking an overall view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served if the present FIR is allowed to be kept alive against the petitioner. This is, thus a fit case for this Court to proceed with the quashing of the present FIR.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.2/2020 dated 04.01.2020 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at PS:

Domestic Airport, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
11. However, since the FIR has been pending for the last 3 years and CRL.M.C. 3317/2021 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/10/2023 at 00:29:33 the police machinery was put in motion, and involved for a considerable period of time, this Court finds it appropriate that the petitioner contributes towards the betterment of the society by doing some social good. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit costs of Rs.30,000/- with the Regimental Fund Account, 3 Assam [Account No- 10794938617, IFSC Code-SBIN0010460] within a period of one week from today.

12. Renotify on 21.11.2023 for compliance.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J OCTOBER 19, 2023/So CRL.M.C. 3317/2021 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/10/2023 at 00:29:33