Conscious Possession is the Key — Mere Inadvertent Carrying of Ammunition Without Knowledge Not an Offence Under Arms Act: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against US Army Personnel

“Possession under Section 25 of the Arms Act must mean ‘conscious possession’ and not mere custody without awareness” –  In a notable reaffirmation of the principle that mens rea is essential for offences under the Arms Act, the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR lodged under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against a US Army officer, who was found carrying 9 live cartridges in his baggage at the IGI Airport, holding that inadvertent possession without conscious knowledge does not constitute an offence.

Allowing the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC in Harmanjeet Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi (CRL.M.C. No. 8338 of 2024), Justice Ravinder Dudeja ruled that the presence of the ammunition was "purely inadvertent", and no useful purpose would be served by continuing prosecution in the absence of animus possidendi.

“Absence of Mental Element — Mens Rea is Indispensable for Possession Offence Under Section 25”

At the heart of the ruling lies the settled principle that the word ‘possession’ under the Arms Act implies conscious possession, as reiterated in the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (1994) 5 SCC 402, where it was held:

“Even though the word ‘possession’ is not preceded by any adjective like ‘knowingly’, yet in the context, ‘possession’ must mean possession with the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness.”

Similarly, in Gunwant Lal v. State of M.P., (1972) 2 SCC 194, the Supreme Court emphasized:

“The first precondition for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge… possession need not be physical possession but must involve knowledge and control.”

Applying these standards, the Court found that no mens rea could be attributed to the petitioner.

“Live Ammunition Without Firearm and No Awareness — No Offence is Made Out”

The petitioner, a US citizen and serving personnel in the US Army, had come to India to attend a family wedding. Before flying back to New York from Delhi, he carried an extra bag belonging to his father, who was also travelling to the US ten days later.

“His father, who holds a valid arms license, had inadvertently left nine cartridges in the luggage. The petitioner had no knowledge about the presence of the ammunition,” argued his counsel.

The Court noted that:

• No firearm was recovered from the petitioner;
• The cartridges were not in his hand baggage but in his checked-in luggage;
• The explanation that his father asked him to carry the bag was plausible and supported by records;
• The arms license of the father and purchase of the cartridges were verified and confirmed by the police.

Justice Dudeja concluded:

“It seems probable that petitioner might have inadvertently carried the ammunition, since if he were to consciously carry the cartridges, he would have carried the weapon along as well.”

“Prosecution Would Amount to Abuse of Process — FIR Quashed Under Section 482 CrPC”

Invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court observed that allowing the criminal process to continue in the absence of the essential ingredients of the offence would result in miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of law.

Citing State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522, the Court reiterated that while the High Court should not ordinarily intervene at the FIR stage, it is justified where the ingredients of the alleged offence are clearly missing.

Justice Dudeja held:

“In my view, the petitioner has adequately explained the presence of the live cartridges in his baggage. No useful purpose shall be served by continuing with the FIR… as also the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.”

“Conscious Possession Doctrine Consistently Applied by Delhi High Court”

This ruling aligns with a series of prior decisions by the Delhi High Court, where inadvertent or unconscious possession of ammunition has not been held to attract Section 25 of the Arms Act:

• Adhiraj Singh Yadav v. State, W.P. (CRL) 754/2020
• Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Singh v. State, W.P. (CRL) 2143/2019
• Aruna Chaudhary v. State & Ors., W.P. (CRL) 1975/2019
• Paramdeep Singh Sran v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P. (CRL) 152/2019

Quoting Adhiraj Singh, the Court reiterated:

“It is well settled that an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act would not be made out in cases where the suspect was not conscious that he was in possession of live ammunition.”

Criminal Process Cannot Be Weaponised Against Inadvertent Mistakes

The Delhi High Court has once again emphasized that consciousness of possession is the cornerstone of criminal liability under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Inadvertent carriage of live cartridges, especially when supported by credible explanation and absence of intent, does not justify prosecution.

“Mens rea is the foundation of criminal jurisprudence — when the mental element is absent, prosecution must not proceed,” observed the Court in substance.

Accordingly, FIR No. 156/2024 registered at PS IGI Airport was quashed, bringing relief to the petitioner and reaffirming the importance of judicial scrutiny in preventing abuse of criminal process.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2025