Karnataka High Court
Mr. Joseph Kevin Shay vs State Of Karnataka By on 15 October, 2015
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5448/2015
BETWEEN
MR. JOSEPH KEVIN SHAY
S/O LATE RICHARD SHAY
AGED 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.11555
HARLAN STREET, WEST MINISTER,
COLORADO -80020.
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
PRESENTLY R/O AT NO.703,
OAKWOOD PREMIER PRESTIGE,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, U B CITY
BANGALORE-560 001
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRIYUTHS
S MAHESH & SANJAY YADAV B, ADVOCATES )
AND
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT POLICE STATION,
DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL -562 110.
2.MR. MANOJ KUMAR
INSPECTOR/EXE,
CISF UNIT, KEMPEGOWDA
2
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
BANGALORE RURAL -562 110.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.R. KESHAV MURTHY, SPP NO.2, FOR R1
SRI. ASHOK NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NO.69/2015 OF BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLIM BENGALURU
AND ITS CONSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The 1st respondent has registered a case against the petitioner herein on the complaint of the 2nd respondent in respect of the offence punishable under Section 25(1B) (a)
(b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.
2. The allegation is that when the hand bag of the accused was subjected to scanning trolley in the International Airport on 9.5.2015, they found one live bullet of 9 mm. The petitioner had no valid licence to 3 possess the ammunition in the prohibited area and thus, he has violated the provisions of the Arms Act, etc.
3. Learned counsel, Sri. Ravi B Naik, Senior Advocate for Sri. S Mahesh and Sanjay Yadav B, submits that the petitioner is a U.S. National. He visited India for thirty days to impart training in computer education. His VISA expired on 18.12.2015. He owns a gun at Colorado and the law of the State of Colorado does not require a license to own a firearm. Inadvertently, he has carried a live bullet in his bag while traveling to India from America. It is a fact that no arm was traced in his baggage. The prosecution has pressed into service the provisions of Section 25 (1B)
(a) (b) of the Arms Act. But the alleged offence would fall under Section 45(d) of the Arms Act, which reads thus:-
"45(d):- The acquisition, possession or carrying by a person of minor parts of arms or ammunition which are not intended to be used along with complementary parts acquired or possessed by that or any other person."4
4. Ammunition as defined in Section 2(1)(b)(iii) of the Arms Act, reads thus:-
"Other articles containing, or designed or adapted to contain, explosive, fulminating or fissionable material or noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, whether capable of use with firearms or not."
5. In view of the fact that the alleged act is not attracted under the Arms Act and this Court under identical situation in Criminal Petition No.3219/2015 disposed on 19th August 2015, has taken a view that no offence was made out under Section 25(1B) (a) (b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959. The VISA of the petitioner has expired. Taking into consideration said fact, the complaint and FIR registered against him may be quashed. In catena of judgments, the other High Courts have also taken similar view.
6. SPP No.2 for the respondent submits that petitioner was conscious about ammunition being carried 5 in his bag and therefore he cannot escape from rigour and purview of Section 25(1B) (a)(b) of the Arms Act.
7. When it is not shown that the single live bullet found in the bag of the petitioner was accompanied with any firearm, that takes away the matter from the purview of the Arms Act, 1959. By virtue of Section 45(d) of the Arms Act, no offence is made out by the prosecution. The eventuality is, the complaint and FIR registered against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.69/2015 of Bengaluru International Airport Police Station, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, registered by the respondent No.1-Police is quashed.
In view of the disposal of the main petition I.A No.1/2015 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ra