CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 $~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010120282025 + CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 BHARAT SAI MAMIDIBATHULA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aamir Chaudhary, Ms. Sakshi Yadav and Mr. Gulshan Mandal, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 929/2024 registered at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arms Act’), and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. The FIR came to be registered pursuant to the recovery of one cartridge from the baggage of the Petitioner at the IGI Airport on 07.12.2024. At the relevant time, the Petitioner was travelling from Delhi to Hyderabad by Air India Flight No. AI-2829. During security screening, one cartridge was detected in his baggage and, upon physical search, the same was recovered. The Petitioner was unable to produce any document authorising carriage of the said cartridge. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that he is a resident of Hyderabad and is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:20:03 CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 presently working as a Software Engineer with Google in the United States of America. According to him, on 24.11.2024, he had visited Oak Tree Gun Club in California for practice shooting. It is stated that during the said activity, ammunition had been handled and one cartridge inadvertently remained unnoticed in the baggage subsequently used by him for his journey to India. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the mere recovery of a cartridge from his baggage would not, by itself, constitute an offence under the Arms Act, as the Petitioner had no knowledge of its presence and was not in conscious possession thereof. 6. Learned counsel submits that the cartridge had remained inadvertently in the baggage after the Petitioner visited Oak Tree Gun Club, California on 24.11.2024 for practice shooting. Upon its detection at the airport, the Petitioner immediately stated that he was unaware of its presence and neither attempted to conceal the same nor evade the security personnel. 7. Learned counsel contends that conscious possession is an essential ingredient of the offence and that mere physical custody, without knowledge or awareness, is insufficient. Reliance is placed upon Avinash Kota v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2024:DHC:7118, wherein an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act was quashed in the absence of conscious possession of a solitary cartridge recovered from the petitioner’s baggage. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 8. Learned APP for the State, relying upon the Status Report, submits that one live cartridge was recovered from the baggage of the Petitioner on 07.12.2024 at the IGI Airport. The Petitioner was unable to produce any valid This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:20:03 CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 document authorising possession or carriage of the said cartridge. 9. Learned APP further submits that, during investigation, the Petitioner did not furnish any justifiable explanation regarding possession of the recovered cartridge. The cartridge was thereafter sent to the FSL, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi for expert examination and, as per the Status Report, the FSL result was awaited. 10. Learned APP submits that in view of the recovery of the live cartridge from the Petitioner’s baggage and the material collected during investigation, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP for the State and has perused the record. 12. There is no dispute regarding the physical recovery of one cartridge from the baggage of the Petitioner. The controversy is, therefore, confined to whether the material on record discloses conscious possession of the said cartridge so as to sustain the offence alleged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 13. At the outset, it may be noticed that a complete live cartridge constitutes “ammunition” within the meaning of the Arms Act. The fact that only a solitary cartridge has been recovered does not, by itself, take the case outside the operation of the Arms Act. However, the mere physical presence of ammunition in the baggage is not conclusive of the offence. What is required to be examined is whether such possession was accompanied by the requisite knowledge or consciousness. 14. In Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0130/1972, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:20:03 CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 the Supreme Court, while considering the meaning of possession under the Arms Act, observed as under: “5. The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act in our view 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 none-the-less a power or control over that weapon so that his possession thereon continues despite physical possession being in someone else. If this were not so. then an owner of a house who leaves an unlicensed eun in that house but is not present when it was recovered by the police can plead that he was not in possession of it even though he had himself consciously kept it there when he went out.” 15. The Supreme Court further held that the first pre-condition for the offence is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge accompanying the possession. 16. The same principle was reiterated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II), MANU/SC/0554/1994, wherein it was held that possession in such a statutory context must mean possession with the requisite mental element, namely, conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession. 17. A Division Bench of this Court in Gaganjot Singh v. State, MANU/DE/3227/2014, considered the case of a solitary live cartridge recovered from the baggage of the petitioner. While holding that a complete cartridge is itself ammunition and cannot be treated as a minor part of ammunition under Section 45(d) of the Arms Act, the Court proceeded to examine whether the petitioner was in conscious possession thereof. It This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:20:03 CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 observed: “12. As noticed previously, a solitary cartridge - which on examination by expert has been confirmed to be a live one - was found by the police. The petitioner was in possession of it. However, he expressed his lack of awareness of that article; and also that the bag from which it was recovered belonged to his uncle. The Police, in the final report, does not indicate that his statement is groundless; there is no material to show that he was conscious of his possession of the cartridge. Though the ballistic report confirms it to be cartridge and consequently it is "ammunition", by itself, that is insufficient to point to suspicion - much less reasonable suspicion of petitioner’s involvement in an offence which, necessarily, has to be based on proven conscious possession.” 18. The decision in Avinash Kota (supra), relied upon by the Petitioner, is also relevant. In the said case, one live cartridge was recovered from the baggage of a passenger travelling from the USA to Delhi and thereafter to Hyderabad. The explanation furnished was that the petitioner's friend had earlier borrowed the baggage for visiting a shooting range in the USA and had inadvertently left a cartridge therein. The petitioner thereafter used the same baggage without being aware of the presence of the cartridge. Upon finding absence of conscious possession, the FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act was quashed. 19. More recently, in Sudipta Kumar Mandal v. State NCT of Delhi, MANU/DE/3265/2025, where two live cartridges had remained unnoticed in an old suitcase used by the petitioner, this Court reiterated that the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge must accompany possession. Upon finding the requisite mental element to be absent, the FIR was quashed. 20. The legal position which emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:20:03 CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 physical recovery and conscious possession are not synonymous. For possession to attract penal consequences under the Arms Act, there must be material from which knowledge or awareness of the ammunition can reasonably be attributed to the person from whose custody it is recovered. 21. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the Petitioner has furnished a specific explanation regarding the presence of the solitary cartridge in his baggage. According to him, he had visited Oak Tree Gun Club, California on 24.11.2024 for practice shooting and one cartridge thereafter remained unnoticed in the baggage subsequently used by him for travel. 22. The Petitioner’s visit to the said shooting facility is not merely a bare assertion. Documents pertaining to Oak Tree Gun Club and contemporaneous material reflecting his participation at the said facility on 24.11.2024 have been placed on record. These documents lend support to the antecedent circumstance forming the basis of the explanation furnished by the Petitioner. 23. The said documents are, however, not being treated as proof that the particular cartridge recovered at the IGI Airport was purchased or issued at Oak Tree Gun Club. Their relevance is confined to lending contemporaneous support to the Petitioner’s assertion that, shortly prior to the journey in question, he had participated in shooting activity at the said facility. 24. The fact that the Petitioner had earlier consciously handled ammunition at the shooting range also cannot, by itself, establish that he remained aware, at the time of his journey on 07.12.2024, that one cartridge continued to remain in his baggage. The knowledge relevant for the offence must accompany the possession sought to be penalised. Prior handling of ammunition cannot automatically be equated with conscious possession of a cartridge stated to have remained unnoticed during a subsequent journey. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:20:03 CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 25. Significantly, the Status Report does not disclose any material, apart from the recovery itself, which would indicate that the Petitioner knowingly carried the cartridge. It records the recovery, absence of a legal document in respect thereof, seizure of the cartridge and the subsequent steps undertaken during investigation. 26. The Status Report also records that the Petitioner did not furnish a “justifiable answer” regarding possession of the recovered cartridge. However, such a characterisation of the explanation cannot substitute material demonstrating knowledge or consciousness. No circumstance has been pointed out in the Status Report from which the Petitioner’s awareness of the presence of the cartridge at the time of travel can reasonably be inferred. 27. As per the Status Report, the FSL result was awaited. Even if the FSL examination establishes that the recovered cartridge is live ammunition, the same would establish the nature of the article recovered. It would not, without anything further, establish the Petitioner’s knowledge of its presence. This distinction was specifically recognised in Gaganjot Singh (supra). 28. Thus, while the factum of recovery is undisputed, the material placed before this Court does not disclose the essential mental element of conscious possession. Apart from the physical presence of the solitary cartridge in the Petitioner’s baggage, there is no material demonstrating that he was aware of its presence at the time of the journey. On the other hand, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner as to how the cartridge could have inadvertently remained in his baggage finds support, to the limited extent noted hereinabove, from the contemporaneous material pertaining to his visit to the shooting range. 29. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the essential This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:20:03 CRL.M.C. 1632/2025 ingredient of conscious possession is not disclosed from the material on record. Continuation of the criminal proceedings solely on the basis of physical recovery of the cartridge would, in the facts of the present case, amount to treating mere custody as sufficient possession, contrary to the settled position of law. 30. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 929/2024 registered at P.S. IGI Airport, Delhi under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed. 31. The petition, along with pending applications, if any, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 32. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 12, 2026/b/m This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:20:03