Gokulnath Jayabalan S/O. Jayabalan ... vs State Government Of Nct Through Sho, Ps ... on 10 July, 2025

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Gokulnath Jayabalan S/O. Jayabalan ... vs State Government Of Nct Through Sho, Ps ... on 10 July, 2025

Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna

                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                                              Date of decision: 10th July, 2025

                          +         CRL.M.C. 1688/2021, CRL.M.A.                                        11790/2021,        CRL.M.A.
                                    15763/2021 & CRL.M.A. 15764/2021

                          GOKULNATH JAYABALAN
                          S/o. Jayabalan
                          R/o. 617, Alexandia Dr. Collierville,
                          TN 38017 United States of America

                          Presently residing at:
                          No.3, Satyamoorthy Nagar,
                          Kangayeam Road, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu                .....Petitioner
                                                 Through: Mr. Shinoj K. Narayanan, Advocate

                                                                  versus

                          STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT
                          Through SHO, PS IGI Airport
                          New Delhi                                 .....Respondent
                                                Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
                                                         SI P.R Hudda, P.S. IGI Airport

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
                                                 J U D G M E N T(oral)

1. The Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 188 dated 06.07.2021 registered at P.S. IGI Airport, New Delhi under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner is a US Citizen of Indian Origin and on 02.07.2021 he got to know that his grandmother is very ill and has been CRL.M.C. 1688/2021 Page 1 of 6 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 11/07/2025 at 22:54:39 admitted to a hospital. So, the Petitioner travelled to India, for which he packed a bag by himself, but could not check his hand luggage carefully.

3. The Petitioner had a valid permit to use Hand Guns in America. While packing his luggage he could not check his bag and missed a 9 mm bullet present in his hand luggage. The Petitioner left from Raleigh, USA on 03.07.2021, reached New York on the same day and from there took a flight to New Delhi on 04.07.2021. His hand luggage was checked at both the Airports and they found nothing illegal during screening.

4. The Petitioner landed on IGI New Delhi at 10:30 PM on 05.07.2021 and got his boarding pass for his flight to Coimbatore, and it was during screening here that they found a 9mm bullet in his backpack; consequently he was detained on 06.07.2021 at about 01:15 AM. The Petitioner had sought to explain that he had a valid permit for handgun in the USA and used to carry the same backpack for practice. His passport was seized and he was allowed to travel to Coimbatore on a photocopy of the passport. Consequently, FIR No. 188 of 2021 was registered under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 against the Petitioner and his arrest deferred.

5. The Petitioner has sought Quashing of the FIR on the ground that the Possession was unintentional and consequently, he cannot be held guilty for offences under Arms Act. Furthermore, he holds a valid license to use hand gun in USA and the possession is not illegal in the USA. It was a Bonafide mistake which happened on account of his failure to check his luggage before packing as he was in urgency due to a family emergency.

CRL.M.C. 1688/2021 Page 2 of 6

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 11/07/2025 at 22:54:39

6. It is submitted that the law in this regard is settled that in case of unintentional possession of a live cartridge, the offence under Section 25 does not lie.

7. The Status Report has been submitted by the SHO wherein it is stated that the Petitioner/Sh. Gokulnath Jayabalan has sought quashing of FIR 188/2021 under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act dated 06.07.2021 at PS IGI Airport. The Complaint in this regard was filed by Complainant SI/Exe. Kapil Dev Swami regarding detection of one 09 mm live cartridge in the backpack of the Petitioner, while he was travelling to Coimbatore by Air India Flight No. A1-429 on 06.07.2021 and he was detained as he was unable to produce any valid document or permit for possession of the same.

8. The Complaint was marked to SI Arun Kumar, who, during the course of investigation, seized the original passport bearing no. 661642886, boarding pass and baggage through seizure memo.

9. On enquiry the Petitioner explained that he was a citizen of USA and purchased the ammunition there only, which is legal in USA. However, he was unable to produce any receipt for the same.

10. Submissions Heard.

11. Admittedly, one live cartridge has been recovered from the possession of the Petitioner during his baggage screening at the Security check at IGI Aiport, New Delhi.

12. As has been held in a catena of judgments, even single cartridge recovered from the possession of a person, amounts to recovery of ammunition. However, the possession has to be conscious to impute any CRL.M.C. 1688/2021 Page 3 of 6 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 11/07/2025 at 22:54:39 culpability. The pre-condition for an offence under the Arms Act, 1959 is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed the Firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence, as held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gunwant Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194.

13. In Ritesh Taneja vs. State and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 971, it has been explained by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that conscious possession of any firearm/ammunition entails strict liability on the offender.

14. In Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had reiterated as under:

"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. (See Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, (1969) 2 A.C. 256 and Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya, (1950) AC 458."

15. In Gaganjot Singh v. State, MANU/DE/3227/2014, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar facts, where a solitary live cartridge was recovered by the police from the petitioner's bag which belonged to his uncle about which he expressed his lack of knowledge. It was held that the CRL.M.C. 1688/2021 Page 4 of 6 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 11/07/2025 at 22:54:39 circumstances did not establish conscious possession. Relying on the decision in Gunwantlal (Supra), the FIR was quashed, and the petitioner was discharged.

16. In Chan Hong Siak through Arvinder Singh vs. State &Anr., decided vide CRL.M.C. 3576/2011 like in the present case, a single live cartridge was found from the possession of the alleged offender. Finding that there were no suspicious circumstances other than the mere recovery of the live cartridge from the possession of the charged individual, the learned Single Judge quashed the criminal proceedings by observing that the "single live cartridge cannot be used for the purpose without firearms".

17. Similar, observations have made consistently by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Narinderjit Kaur Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) decided vide W.P.(CRL) 1669/2017 and Nimesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi, decided vide W.P.(CRL) 3540/2017.

18. The circumstance in which the cartridge has been recovered from the Petitioner has been satisfactorily explained by the Petitioner. He has stated that he was not even aware of the existence of this cartridge in his backpack. He was travelling to India due to a family emergency and that's the reason he failed to check his luggage when he packed the same for his trip to India.

19. In any case, the same luggage was screened twice before being flagged at the IGI Airport. The Petitioner has provided details of the two trips from Raleigh/Durham and New York/Newark. The live cartridge was not flagged during either of the screenings as it is not illegal in the USA. Thus, the Petitioner never realised about its existence in his luggage.

20. It can be safely inferred that presence of the cartridges in the bag was without the knowledge of the Petitioner and he did not have the requisite CRL.M.C. 1688/2021 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.

21. Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 188/2021 registered at PS IGI Airport, for offence under Section 25 of the Act, 1959 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.

22. The present Petition along with pending Application(s), if any, is disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JULY 10, 2025 N CRL.M.C. 1688/2021 Page 6 of 6 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 11/07/2025 at 22:54:39

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders