Telangana HC Quashes Arms Act Proceedings Against Student Found With Ammunition in Bag | Conscious Possession Must Be Proven for Prosecution Under Section 25
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi has quashed criminal proceedings arising from the alleged recovery of live ammunition from the bag of a passenger at an airport, holding that there was no evidence of conscious possession. The court allowed a criminal revision case challenging the dismissal of a discharge petition by the trial court and set aside the lower court's order that had refused to discharge the accused. In its judgment dated 25th July 2025, the court stated that "the mere recovery of live ammunition, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing conscious possession or the requisite mens rea, is insufficient to attract the penal provisions of the Arms Act." The final directive discharged the accused from all charges and quashed the proceedings, concluding that there was no foundational material to establish that the petitioner had the requisite mental element for criminal liability.
The petitioner, referred to as accused No.1 in the charge sheet, filed a Criminal Revision Case seeking to set aside the order dated 08.09.2015 issued in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3408 of 2014 in C.C. No.299 of 2014. This order, passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, dismissed the petitioner's application for discharge in a case registered under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959.
According to the charge sheet and related records, the petitioner and a second individual, accused No.2, were known to each other. On 21.01.2011, during a birthday celebration held in Calcutta, accused No.2 allegedly gifted one .380 live ammunition round to the petitioner for use as a locket for a neck chain. The petitioner reportedly placed the ammunition in his bag and later travelled to Hyderabad by train to attend a marriage.
Following the marriage, on 13.02.2011, the petitioner arrived at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, intending to return to Calcutta. During a routine security check at the airport, security personnel found the aforementioned live ammunition in the petitioner’s bag. As a result, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered in Crime No.51 of 2011, citing an offence punishable under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959.
After the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. In response, the petitioner filed a discharge application before the trial court, seeking to be discharged from the alleged offence. The trial court, however, dismissed the application on 08.09.2015. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the current Criminal Revision Case before the High Court.
In the High Court proceedings, counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had no connection to the alleged offence and that the trial court had erred in refusing to discharge him. The defense submitted that there was no material to demonstrate that the live ammunition had been consciously possessed by the petitioner. It was contended that the mere presence of the ammunition in his luggage did not establish intention, knowledge, or awareness, which are essential elements under the Arms Act.
The counsel further submitted that the police investigation was flawed and lacked proper inquiry, leading to a charge sheet without any incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The argument stated that even if the facts stated in the charge sheet were accepted as true, they did not make out the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
In support of the discharge plea, the petitioner's counsel relied on two judicial precedents: the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Birendra Shukla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another, and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Manohar Singh Dasauni v. State of Goa, Through Verna Police Station.
On the contrary, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State-respondents argued that the case involved triable issues and that the trial court had committed no legal error in dismissing the discharge application. The prosecution maintained that the criminal proceedings should continue.
The court began its assessment by examining the allegations presented in the charge sheet. It noted that "the sole allegation against the petitioner–accused No.1 is that he was found in possession of live ammunition, which was allegedly recovered from his bag during security checking at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad." The court further stated, "There is no further material indicating any misuse or unlawful intent associated with such possession."
The court turned to the relevant statutory provisions, namely Sections 25(1)(a) and 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959. It quoted:
"25(1)(a) Whoever...has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5..."
"25(1-A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment..."
The court remarked, "A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions...indicates that Section 25(1)(a) prescribes the penalty for manufacturing, selling, transferring...in contravention of Section 5... On the other hand, Section 25(1-A) specifically relates to the illegal possession, acquisition, or carrying of prohibited arms or ammunition in violation of Section 7."
Importantly, the court observed that "Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 clearly indicates that the term ‘possession’ as used therein contemplates conscious possession, and not mere inadvertent or unconscious possession." It stated the requirement of "mens rea, i.e., knowledge of such possession or control over the firearm or ammunition, even in the absence of actual physical possession."
The court stated, "Mere custody without mens rea would not amount to an offence under the Act. Conscious possession is a necessary ingredient to establish criminal liability under this statutory provision." In the context of the present case, the court recorded, "there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner–accused No.1 had conscious knowledge of the possession of the live ammunition."
Referring to the Delhi High Court judgement in Birendra Shukla, the court cited the following passage: "Mere custody without mens rea would not constitute an offence under the Arms Act. Conscious possession of a fire arm/ammunition is a necessary ingredient of the statutory offence entailing strict liability on the offender."
Similarly, from the Bombay High Court decision in Manohar Singh Dasauni, the court quoted: "Mere possession of the firearm or ammunition would not constitute offence under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The essential requirement is the knowledge of possession or power or control over the arm or ammunition when not in actual possession."
Upon reviewing the trial court's order, the High Court stated, "The impugned order does not reflect any proper or cogent reasoning for rejecting the discharge application... appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind."
The judgment further noted, "The continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law." It added that, "the learned trial Court failed to properly assess whether the allegations in the charge sheet, even if taken at face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence."
In concluding its decision, the High Court issued the following directions:
"This Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the impugned Order dated 08.09.2015 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3408 of 2014 in C.C.No.299 of 2014 passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, presently pending on the file of the learned XXV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District at Rajendranagar."
The court held: "Consequently, the petitioner-accused No.1 is discharged from the alleged offence. All proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed."
In light of the quashing of the proceedings, the court concluded: "As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Zainab Khan, learned counsel, representing Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy
For the Respondents: Smt. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Karan Sajnani v. The State of Telangana
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No. 2309 of 2015
Bench: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
