Delhi High Court - Orders
Karan Singh Yadav vs Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 15 July, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 904/2021
KARAN SINGH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Aamir Chaudhary, Adv.
versus
NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for
State with Mr. Karan Jeet Rai
Sharma, Adv. with Insp. Ajay Mishra.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 15.07.2021 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 40/2021 under Section 25 Arms Act registered at PS IGI Airport on the ground that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the same and possessed the said cartridge legally being a valid arms licensee.
2. The above-noted FIR was registered at IGI Airport on the complaint of Shri Pradeep Verma, Senior Associate, Security and Vigilance, Terminal- 3, IGI Airport who alleged that on 6th February, 2021 while screening the bag under tag number UK-0228756198 appeared at level-2. On physical checking one cartridge was recovered in the baggage of the petitioner while travelling from Delhi to Varanasi by Vistara flight number UK-673. The petitioner did not have any Arms License. Hence, the FIR was registered and the ammunition was sent to FSL for ballistic examination.
Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(CRL) 904/2021 Page 1 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:15.07.2021 21:34:37
3. During the course of investigation, petitioner submitted copy of the license issued to him by the District Magistrate, Sambhal (UP) on which license, the petitioner had purchased 20 cartridges of .32 bore on 15th December, 2017 from Rashtriya Shastragar, Arms & Ammunition Dealer, Bazar Ther, District Sambhal (UP).
4. Verification of these documents were done from the District Magistrate, Sambhal as also from Rashtriya Shastragar and it was informed that the petitioner held an Arms License valid up to 23rd December, 2021 with area validity for the UP State and that he has purchased 20 cartridges on 15th December, 2017.
5. Considering the verification conducted it is thus evident that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the ammunition when the same was found in his bag, though he holds a valid Arms License for the State of UP.
6. It is well settled that to convict an accused for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act the prosecution must prove that the accused was in conscious possession of the arms/ammunition and that his possession is illegal. Supreme Court in its decision reported as (1972) 2 SCC 194 Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh held:
"The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act must have, firstly the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in the person charged with such offence and secondly, where he has not the actual physical possession, he has nonetheless a power or control over that weapon so that his possession thereon continues besides physical possession being in someone else. The first pre-condition for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and secondly that Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 904/2021 Page 2 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:15.07.2021 21:34:37 possession need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the gun, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power and control. In any disputed question of possession, specific facts admitted or proved alone will establish the existence of the de facto relation of control or the dominion of the person over it necessary to determine whether that person was or was not in possession of the thing in question. In this view it is difficult to postulate as to what the evidence will be. If the possession of the appellant includes the constructive possession of the firearm in question then even though he had parted with physical possession on the date when it was recovered, he will nonetheless be deemed to be in possession of that firearm. If so, the charge that he was in possession of the revolver does not suffer from any defect particularly when he is definitely informed in that charge that he had control over that revolver"
7. It is trite law that the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of the Court but should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution and the High Court cannot assume the role of a Trial Court and embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence. However, if on the face of the charge-sheet the ingredients of the offences are not disclosed, the High Court would be within its power to quash a frivolous proceedings. [See (2004) 6 SCC 522 State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr.]
8. The Division Bench of this Court in Gaganjot Singh v. State W.P.(CRL.) 1169/2014 decided on 1st December, 2014 in a case of recovery of a solitary live cartridge found from the possession of the petitioner therein who expressed his lack of awareness as the bag recovered belonged to his uncle, held that the possession of the petitioner therein was not conscious Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 904/2021 Page 3 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:15.07.2021 21:34:37 and quashed the proceedings.
9. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Juan Manuel Sanchez Rosas v. State through NCT Delhi & Anr., Crl.M.C.2642/2014; Jaswinder Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl.M.C. 4207/2014 and Sonam Chaudhary v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) Crl.M.C.471/2015.
10. Consequently, FIR No. 40/2021 under Section 25 Arms Act registered at PS IGI Airport and the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
11. Petition is disposed of.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 15, 2021 'ga' Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 904/2021 Page 4 ofSigned Digitally 4 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:15.07.2021 21:34:37