$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010208402025 + CRL.M.C. 2539/2025 & CRL.M.A. 11380/2025 DANIEL HEYDECKER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay V., Mr. Siddharth Goswami, Mr. Aditya Sachdeva, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP with Ms. Mansi Arya, Adv. SI Sudhir, P.S. IGI Airport. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 21.09.2026 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’) seeks quashing of FIR No. 280/2025 dated 02.04.2025, registered at P.S. IGI Airport, New Delhi, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arms Act’), and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. The FIR came to be registered after one cartridge was recovered from the checked-in baggage of the Petitioner while he was travelling from Delhi to Dehradun. The case of the Petitioner is that he was unaware of the presence of the cartridge and was, therefore, not in conscious possession thereof. 4. The Petitioner is a Swiss national who arrived in India on 01.04.2025. As per the petition, he was visiting India in connection with work relating to 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 22/09/2026 at 10:51:22 orthotics and prosthetics. The Petitioner has further stated that he is associated with sports shooting in Switzerland and is the President of a Sports Shooting Club at Rafz. 5. On 02.04.2025, the Petitioner was scheduled to travel from Delhi to Dehradun by Air India Flight No. AI-2438. During screening of his checked- in baggage at Terminal - 3, IGI Airport, the baggage was flagged on suspicion of containing undeclared ammunition. Upon physical examination, one cartridge of 4 mm calibre was recovered, resulting in registration of the present FIR. 6. The explanation furnished by the Petitioner is that a few days prior to his visit to India, he had participated in shooting activities in Switzerland and the cartridge had inadvertently remained in the pocket of a trouser used by him. The said trouser was thereafter packed in his luggage without his noticing the cartridge. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that mere recovery of a solitary cartridge, in the absence of knowledge or awareness of its presence, would not constitute conscious possession within the meaning of the Arms Act. It is submitted that no firearm or any other ammunition was recovered from the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also placed on record documents pertaining to his association with sports shooting and his Swiss shooting licence. 8. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the petition and relies upon the Status Report. It is submitted that one cartridge was recovered from the checked-in baggage of the Petitioner and that he did not possess any valid document for carriage of the said ammunition. The cartridge was seized and sent to FSL, Rohini, for expert examination. 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 22/09/2026 at 10:51:22 9. The Status Report further records that during examination, the Petitioner stated that the cartridge belonged to him and had accidentally remained in his baggage. More particularly, it records that the cartridge was found in the pocket of a pant packed in his luggage and that the Petitioner stated that he was unaware of its presence. It is also stated that the Petitioner furnished documents relating to his membership of Schützen Rafzerfeld Sports Shooting Club and a copy of Swiss Shooting Licence No. 691727. 10. The State further submits that, at the time of filing of the Status Report, the FSL result was awaited and a communication had also been sent to the Swiss authorities for verification of the shooting licence. It is, therefore, urged that the investigation is at an initial stage and the FIR ought not to be quashed. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP for the State and perused the record. 12. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the material forming part of the prosecution case discloses conscious possession of the cartridge on the part of the Petitioner. 13. At the outset, the mere fact that only one cartridge was recovered does not take the case outside the Arms Act. In Gaganjot Singh v. State, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6885, a Division Bench of this Court held that a solitary live cartridge constitutes ‘ammunition’ and cannot be treated as a minor part of ammunition for the purposes of Section 45(d) of the Arms Act. 14. The material question, however, is not merely whether the recovered article constitutes ammunition, but whether its possession by the Petitioner was conscious. Physical custody and conscious possession are not synonymous. 15. In Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194, the 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 22/09/2026 at 10:51:22 Supreme Court explained the requirement of possession under the Arms Act in the following terms: “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….As we said earlier, the first precondition for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and secondly that possession need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the gun, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power and control.” 16. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410, reiterated the requirement of a mental element in the concept of possession and observed: “The meaning of the first ingredient of ‘possession’ of any such arms etc. is not disputed. 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. There is a mental element in the concept of possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of 'possession' in Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious possession. This is how the ingredient of possession in similar context of a statutory offence 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 22/09/2026 at 10:51:22 importing strict liability on account of mere possession of an unauthorized substance has been understood.” 17. Thus, mere physical custody of an arm or ammunition would not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of possession where the material does not indicate knowledge or awareness of its presence. 18. The principle was applied by the Division Bench of this Court in Gaganjot Singh (supra), where a solitary live cartridge was recovered from the baggage of the petitioner therein. The Court observed: “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.” 19. The decision in Gaganjot Singh (supra), therefore, draws a clear distinction between the nature of the article recovered and the state of mind of the person from whose possession it is recovered. A cartridge may constitute ‘ammunition’, nevertheless, prosecution for its possession requires material indicative of conscious possession. 20. In Ritesh Taneja v. State & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 971, this Court again reiterated that the possession contemplated under the Arms Act must carry the requisite mental element and that mere custody without awareness would not satisfy the requirement of conscious possession. 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 22/09/2026 at 10:51:22 21. When the facts of the present case are examined against the aforesaid legal position, the material on record does not disclose conscious possession on the part of the Petitioner. Significantly, it is not merely the Petitioner’s assertion before this Court that he was unaware of the cartridge. The Status Report itself records his explanation during investigation that the cartridge was found in the pocket of a pant packed in his luggage and that he was unaware that he was carrying it. 22. The manner of recovery is also relevant. The cartridge was recovered from the pocket of a garment lying inside the checked-in baggage of the Petitioner. No firearm or any other ammunition is stated to have been recovered from him. The Petitioner also furnished during investigation documents relating to his association with a Sports Shooting Club in Switzerland and a copy of his Swiss shooting licence. Whether the said licence stands verified or what legal effect it may have is not required to be determined in the present proceedings. The documents are relevant only as part of the circumstances in which the Petitioner has explained the presence of the solitary cartridge. 23. The State has also stated that the FSL report was awaited. Even if the recovered article is ultimately confirmed to be a live cartridge and, consequently, ‘ammunition’ within the meaning of the Arms Act, the same would establish the nature of the article recovered. It would not, by itself, establish that the Petitioner was aware of its presence. 24. This distinction was expressly recognised in Gaganjot Singh (supra), where notwithstanding a ballistic report confirming the recovered cartridge to be live ammunition, the proceedings were quashed in the absence of material indicating conscious possession. 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 22/09/2026 at 10:51:22 25. Similarly, the pending verification of the Swiss shooting licence does not answer the central question arising in the present petition. The issue is not whether the Petitioner was authorised under Swiss law to possess ammunition, but whether there is material to indicate that he knew that the cartridge was present in his baggage. 26. The Status Report does not point to any other circumstance from which knowledge or conscious carriage of the cartridge may reasonably be inferred. Apart from the recovery itself, no material indicating awareness of its presence has been placed before this Court. 27. No material presently placed before this Court contradicts the explanation of inadvertent carriage. The manner of recovery recorded in the Status Report is also consistent with the explanation furnished by the Petitioner. 28. This Court is conscious that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, disputed questions of fact are ordinarily not to be adjudicated and the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial. The present case, however, does not require such an exercise. Even if the prosecution material is taken as it stands, it does not disclose the essential element of conscious possession. 29. The consistent principle emerging from Gunwantlal (supra), Sanjay Dutt (supra), Gaganjot Singh (supra) and Ritesh Taneja (supra) is that mere recovery may establish physical custody, but prosecution for possession requires material showing knowledge or awareness of such possession. 30. In the facts of the present case, continuation of the criminal proceedings in the absence of material disclosing the aforesaid foundational ingredient would serve no useful purpose. 31. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 280/2025 dated 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 22/09/2026 at 10:51:22 02.04.2025, registered at P.S. IGI Airport, New Delhi, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua the Petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 32. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/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 22/09/2026 at 10:51:22