Court Rules Mere Recovery of One Cartridge Without Conscious Possession or Firearm Does Not Constitute Offence Under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959
In a significant judgment delivered on October 16, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Mr. Ravinder Dudeja, J., quashed the charge sheet and criminal proceedings against Mr. Lingamally Veera Gopal Rao, who was accused of violating Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, for alleged possession of a live cartridge at IGI Airport, New Delhi.
The case arose from an incident on June 9, 2022, when security personnel at IGI Airport detected a single live cartridge in baggage tagged under Mr. Damera Ram Sudhakar Rao, a co-passenger traveling with the petitioner. Upon inquiry, Mr. Sudhakar Rao claimed the baggage belonged to Mr. Rao. The petitioner was unable to produce a valid arms license or documents for the cartridge, leading to FIR No. 0226/2022 under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
During investigation, the cartridge was confirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory as ammunition as defined under Section 2(b) of the Arms Act. Despite this, the petitioner contended that he had no knowledge or conscious possession of the cartridge, which was not detected during his inbound flight from Hyderabad to Delhi and was only found on his return journey. He denied any intent or awareness of carrying the ammunition.
The court examined the legal meaning of "possession" under Section 25 of the Arms Act, emphasizing that it requires conscious possession - possession with knowledge and intent - rather than mere physical custody without awareness. The judgment relied on precedents including the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI which underscored the mental element necessary to establish possession of arms or ammunition.
Further, the court reviewed similar decisions by Delhi High Court benches where charges were quashed in cases involving inadvertent or unknown possession of live cartridges without accompanying firearms or suspicious circumstances. The petitioner's explanation and lack of incriminating evidence satisfied the court that no offence was made out against him.
The court concluded that the continuation of prosecution under Section 25 would be an abuse of the legal process as there was no proof of conscious possession, knowledge, or intent to carry the live cartridge. Consequently, the charge sheet and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 8406/2022 were quashed.
This ruling reaffirms the principle that mere recovery of ammunition without conscious possession or intent does not attract penal liability under the Arms Act, protecting individuals from unjust prosecution where no mens rea exists.
Bottom Line:
Arms Act, 1959 - Mere recovery of a live cartridge from baggage, without proof of conscious possession, knowledge or intent, does not constitute an offence under Section 25 - Where only one cartridge was recovered, no firearm was found and no suspicious circumstances indicated conscious possession, continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process and charge-sheet is liable to be quashed.
Statutory provision(s):
Arms Act, 1959 Section 2(b), Section 25
Lingamally Veera Gopal Rao v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998612
