Author: Ankita Karn (REVA University, Bangalore)
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the possession of ammunition without any knowledge is amount to no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act which was decided in Hari Kishan v State (NCT of Delhi).
In the case Hari Kishan v State (NCT of Delhi), Hari Kishan was detected with a catridge in his bag at the Malviya Nagar Metro Station by DMRC officials. He contended that he was not aware of the catridge in his bag which was in his side pocket of the bag which even doesn’t have any zip and was transparent. He stated that he started from his home Sangam Vihar to Kashmiri Gate through a Gramin Sewa auto rickshaw and reached the Malviya Nagar Metro station, he further states that he was travelling along with 9 to 11 passengers seated in that Auto. He claimed that someone else must have put the catridge in his bag’s pocket when he was travelling in that share auto to metro station.
The somewhat similar scenario had happened in Ganganjot Singh v State where the petitioner was unaware of the catridge which was found in his bag during airport checking, he further stated that he lent this bag from his Uncle for the journey and he was completely unknown about the fact of carrying catridge with him.
The petitioner (Hari Singh) relied on precedents which term the word ‘possession’ in Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959, which means that mere possession of arms which, one is totally unknown of the nature of such possession does not amount to any offence under the Arms Acts 1959(Sunjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay, Siddhartha Kapur v State (Government of NCT of Delhi).
The single bench of Justice Anu Malhotra found that case to be identical with the case at hand. The Court held:
In view of the verdict of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Gaganjot Singh (supra) and the catena of verdicts relied upon on behalf of the petitioner which are in facts pari materia to the instant case which cases have been adjudicated by the learned Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, and taking into account that there is not a whisper of an averment in the FIR as averred in the charge sheet that the petitioner was aware of being in alleged conscious and knowledgeable possession of the ammunition in question, the FIR against the petitioner is hereby quashed and thus the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner are also quashed.
It was further concluded that only the conscious possession of any kind of ammunition, where the person is completely aware of the fact of the possession of the arm, can amount to offence under the Arms Act, 1959.
To Read the Judgment: Click Here!
How useful was this post?
Click on a star to rate it!
Average rating / 5. Vote count:
We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!
Let us improve this post!
Thanks for your feedback!