CRL.M.C. 3884/2026 $~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010222142026 + CRL.M.C. 3884/2026 & CRL.M.A. 15760/2026 MANJEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Jain, Mr. Yashvant Singh Mr. Mohit Miglani, Mr. Satyam Shivaach and Ms. Reema Batra, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP with Ms. Ruchi and Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 24.09.2026 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’) has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 489/2022, registered at Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arms Act’), and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. Briefly stated, on 04.11.2022, during screening of baggage bearing tag No. AI-540422 at Terminal-3, IGI Airport, an ammunition shaped article was detected. Upon physical examination, one cartridge bearing the marking “WIN 380 AUTO” was recovered. The baggage tag was in the name of one Hakam Singh, who was travelling from Delhi to Dubai by Air India Flight No. AI-915. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:40 CRL.M.C. 3884/2026 4. During investigation, Hakam Singh stated that he was travelling to Dubai along with six other friends and that, at the time of tagging, the airline staff had put baggage tags in his name on the baggage of his friends as well. The Investigating Agency thereafter verified that the baggage from which the cartridge was recovered belonged to the Petitioner, who had travelled to Dubai by the same flight. 5. The Petitioner was thereafter interrogated. He produced a copy of Arms Licence No. DM/MNS/ARM/JHNR/1120/2, stated to have been issued by the District Magistrate, Mansa, Punjab and valid till 05.11.2023. During interrogation, the Petitioner stated that a few months prior to the incident, he had kept the cartridge in the suitcase but had thereafter forgotten about it and did not remember that the cartridge was lying in the baggage when he travelled on 04.11.2022. 6. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet dated 04.03.2024 was filed against the Petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The cartridge was subsequently examined by the Ballistics Division and was found to be a live .380 AUTO cartridge capable of being fired through a 9 mm calibre firearm and constituting “ammunition” under the Arms Act. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that mere recovery of the cartridge from the baggage of the Petitioner, without knowledge of its presence, would not constitute an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the Petitioner had explained during investigation itself that the cartridge had remained in the suitcase from an earlier occasion and that he had forgotten about its presence when he undertook the journey. 8. Learned counsel further submits that no firearm was recovered from the Petitioner and there is no allegation of any use or intended use of 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:40 CRL.M.C. 3884/2026 recovered cartridge. It is, therefore, submitted that the essential ingredient of conscious possession is absent and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is unwarranted. 9. Learned APP for the State, while relying upon the status report, submits that the baggage from which the cartridge was recovered was verified during investigation to be that of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that during interrogation, the Petitioner himself stated that he had kept the cartridge in the suitcase a few months prior to the incident. The ballistic examination has also confirmed that the recovered cartridge was live ammunition. 10. Learned APP further submits that sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act has been obtained and the chargesheet under Section 25 of the Arms Act has already been filed. Insofar as the arms licence produced by the Petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that a fresh notice has been issued to the office of the District Magistrate, Mansa, Punjab for verification thereof and that the verification report is awaited. 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP for the State and perused the record. 12. The recovery of one live cartridge from the baggage belonging to the Petitioner is not in dispute. The question which, however, requires consideration is whether the material collected during investigation discloses conscious possession of the said cartridge on the part of the Petitioner. 13. The law with regard to conscious possession under the Arms Act is well settled. In Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0130/1972, the Supreme Court, while explaining the expression “possession”, held as under: “The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act in 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:40 CRL.M.C. 3884/2026 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.” 14. The aforesaid principle was applied by a Division Bench of this Court in Gaganjot Singh v. State, MANU/DE/3227/2014, where a solitary live cartridge was recovered from the baggage of the petitioner. The Court observed as under: “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 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:40 CRL.M.C. 3884/2026 possession.” 15. In Mitali Singh v. NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2020:DHC:3587, where a live cartridge was recovered from the check in baggage of the petitioner at IGI Airport, this Court reiterated that conscious possession of ammunition is sine qua non for prosecution under the Arms Act and quashed the proceedings upon finding no material to establish conscious possession. 16. Similarly, in Ritesh Taneja v. State & Ors., MANU/DE/1093/2022, this Court held that possession under the Arms Act necessarily imports the requisite mental element and that mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession would not constitute an offence. The Court found that, in the absence of sufficient material or reasonable ground to establish conscious possession of the cartridges recovered from the baggage, continuation of the proceedings would be futile. 17. In the present case, the material collected during investigation establishes that the baggage belonged to the Petitioner and that a live cartridge was recovered therefrom. It also records the statement of the Petitioner that he had himself kept the cartridge in the suitcase a few months earlier. However, the same statement records that he had thereafter forgotten about the cartridge and did not remember its presence in the suitcase when he travelled on 04.11.2022. 18. Significantly, the status report does not refer to any material collected during investigation which contradicts the aforesaid explanation or otherwise indicates that the Petitioner was aware of the presence of the cartridge in the baggage at the time of travel. The fact that the Petitioner had placed the cartridge in the suitcase at an earlier point of time explains its presence therein, it does not, by itself, establish that he continued to remember its 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:40 CRL.M.C. 3884/2026 presence when he undertook the journey several months thereafter. 19. The ballistic report establishes that the recovered article was a live cartridge and constituted ammunition under the Arms Act. It does not, however, establish the Petitioner’s knowledge of its presence in the baggage. As observed in Gaganjot Singh (supra), the nature of the recovered article and the question of conscious possession are distinct. 20. No firearm was recovered from the Petitioner. There is also no material referred to in the status report indicating any use, threat or other conduct involving the recovered cartridge from which knowledge of its presence at the relevant time could be inferred. Further, the fact that verification of the arms licence is awaited does not, by itself, establish conscious possession. 21. Thus, apart from the physical recovery of the cartridge from the baggage belonging to the Petitioner, the material placed before this Court does not disclose the requisite element of consciousness or knowledge at the relevant time. Mere physical possession, without such consciousness or knowledge, would not satisfy the requirement of possession contemplated under the Arms Act. 22. In the facts of the present case and in light of the settled position of law noticed above, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, FIR No. 489/2022, registered at Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the chargesheet filed pursuant thereto and all proceedings emanating therefrom, qua the Petitioner, are quashed. 23. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 24. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:40 CRL.M.C. 3884/2026 and necessary compliance. 25. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 24, 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:40