‘No Conscious Possession’: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Under Arms Act | Man Carried Father’s 1971 Indo-Pak War Cartridges
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the possession of cartridges in the case before it was not established as conscious possession and therefore did not disclose commission of any offence. The Court accordingly directed that the First Information Report registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. The judicial action concluded that the circumstances surrounding the recovery of three cartridges from the petitioner did not reflect criminal intent, and the proceedings could not be sustained.
The proceedings arose from an incident dated 9 February 2022 when the petitioner was travelling from New Delhi to Mumbai. During the baggage screening at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, three undeclared cartridges were recovered from his possession. Following the recovery, a complaint was made and the cartridges were seized by the police. FIR No. 54 of 2022 was registered at Police Station IGI Airport under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
It was submitted before the Court that the petitioner, a resident of Mumbai, had no knowledge of the cartridges in his baggage. The explanation provided was that the ammunition belonged to his late father, Brigadier P.S. Talwar, who had served in the Indian Army and participated in the Indo-Pak War of 1971 at the Bangladesh border. Brigadier Talwar retired from service in 1983 and subsequently resided in New Delhi, at House No. 5/20, Punjabi Bagh Extension. During his service, he had collected ammunitions as memoirs of his participation in the war. These were kept among his personal belongings.
The petitioner had moved to Mumbai, where he established his business and permanently resided. When his father’s health deteriorated, he was taken to Mumbai, where he eventually passed away on 14 October 2020 at the age of 91 years. The house in Punjabi Bagh remained unused and locked thereafter. In 2022, the petitioner visited the house in Delhi and rented it out. While returning to Mumbai, he carried a packet containing his late father’s identification card, service book, CSD card, and medals. The cartridges, unknown to the petitioner, were also in the packet.
It was submitted that the petitioner had mistaken the cartridges as mere mementos or medals belonging to his late father. He carried the packet with the impression that the items were memorabilia and not live ammunition. The petitioner contended that he had no intention of using the cartridges in any manner. His counsel argued that the case fell under the categories of matters in which criminal proceedings should be quashed, as determined in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259. They further submitted that the ammunition was never under the petitioner’s control and therefore his act did not constitute an offence.
The State opposed the petition, relying on the fact that live ammunition was found in the petitioner’s baggage at the airport. The presence of three cartridges was undisputed, and recovery had been duly recorded by the authorities at IGI Airport.
The Court examined the submissions and record of the proceedings. It was admitted that the cartridges were recovered from the petitioner’s baggage. However, the central issue was whether the possession of the cartridges could be said to be conscious possession attributable to the petitioner, thereby creating culpability under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The Court recorded that “as has been held in a catena of judgments, even single ammunition recovered from the possession of a person, amounts to recovery of ammunition. However, the possession has to be conscious to impute any culpability.” The Court stated that 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. This principle was derived from the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gunwant Lal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194.
The Court referred to Ritesh Taneja v. State and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 971, where it was explained that conscious possession of any firearm or ammunition entails strict liability on the offender. Similarly, in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that “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.” The Court added, “there is a mental element in the concept of possession.”
The judgment noted the decision in Gaganjot Singh v. State, MANU/DE/3227/2014, where in similar facts, a solitary cartridge was found in the baggage of the petitioner. Since the cartridge belonged to his uncle and the petitioner lacked knowledge of it, the Court held that the possession was not conscious, quashed the FIR, and discharged the petitioner.
The Court also relied on Chan Hong Siak through Arvinder Singh v. State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 3576/2011, where a single cartridge was found in the possession of the individual. The proceedings were quashed on the ground that there were no suspicious circumstances other than the recovery, and the cartridge could not be used without a firearm. Likewise, in Narinderjit Kaur Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 1669/2017 and Nimesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 3540/2017, similar observations were made.
In the present case, the Court observed that the petitioner had explained the circumstances of recovery, and it was established that the ammunition belonged to his late father. The cartridges had remained unnoticed in the suitcase as part of memorabilia and were carried without knowledge of their nature. The Court recorded that “the circumstances as explained by the Petitioner, clearly establish that there was no criminal intent on his part. It can be inferred that presence of the cartridges was without the knowledge of the Petitioner and he did not have the requisite men rea.”
The Court concluded that the possession of cartridges was not conscious possession, and therefore, the incident did not disclose commission of any offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The Court directed that “FIR No. 54/2022 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station I.G.I. Airport and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.” It further ordered that the petition, along with any pending applications, was disposed of. This constituted the final operative direction of the judgment.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Sharma, Mr. M. K. Gaur, Mr. Peeyush Kaushik, Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Mr. Siddharth Kaushik, and Ms. Priyanka Kaushik, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Utkarsh, APP
Case Title: Harjeet Singh Talwar v. State NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6790
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5454/2025, CRL.M.A. 23405/2025, 23406/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
