Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge

"The term ‘possession’ refers to the possession backed by the requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession. Therefore, mere custody, without being aware of such possession does not constitute an offence under the Arms Act." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling pronounced on October 16, 2026, held that mere physical custody of ammunition without the requisite mental element of "conscious possession" does not constitute an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

A single-judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that "mere custody, without being aware of such possession does not constitute an offence under the Arms Act," while quashing a chargesheet and criminal proceedings against an airline passenger from whose check-in baggage a solitary live bullet was recovered.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking to quash FIR No. 0226/2022 registered at Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi, after a single live cartridge was detected during physical baggage screening for a Delhi to Hyderabad flight. Upon investigation and ballistic confirmation from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Rohini that the cartridge constituted "ammunition" under Section 2(b) of the Arms Act, the police obtained statutory sanction under Section 39 of the Act and filed a chargesheet before the Patiala House Courts. The petitioner invoked the High Court's inherent powers, asserting that he lacked conscious possession and had no awareness or intent regarding the ammunition inside his luggage.

The primary question before the court was whether the inadvertent recovery of a solitary live cartridge from an air passenger’s baggage, in the complete absence of any corresponding firearm or incriminating circumstances, satisfies the legal threshold of "conscious possession" necessary to sustain a prosecution under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Statutory Possession Mandates Requisite Mental Element

Delivering the judgment, the High Court clarified that while a live cartridge falls within the statutory definition of "ammunition" under Section 2(b) of the Arms Act as affirmed by the Division Bench in Gaganjot Singh v. State, criminal liability under Section 25 fundamentally hinges on the concept of conscious possession. The court highlighted that custody in the physical sense is legally distinct from possession in the penal sense, the latter requiring an active mental accompaniment.

The bench stressed that penal liability under the Arms Act cannot be attracted mechanically upon the bare discovery of an object. The legal framework demands evidence of awareness, control, and intentional dominion over the recovered contraband.

Supreme Court Precedents Settle The Doctrine Of Conscious Possession

To elucidate the legal requirement of the mental element, the court drew substantial reliance on the landmark Constitution Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 402. The bench reiterated the apex court's definitive interpretation of statutory possession in strict liability penal statutes.

Justice Dudeja reproduced the core ratio from Sanjay Dutt, noting that "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."

The High Court further cited the Constitution Bench judgment in Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 194, which held that the first precondition for an offence under the Arms Act is the element of intention, consciousness, or knowledge with which a person possesses the firearm or ammunition before it can be said to constitute an offence.

Absence Of Firearm And Malice Negates Culpable Intent

Evaluating the facts, the court noted that only a single live cartridge was found in the petitioner's luggage, unaccompanied by any firearm or weapon. The court noted the coordinate bench ruling in Mohd. Tarique Rehman v. NCT of Delhi, which established that the doctrine of conscious possession requires not only physical custody but also demonstrable awareness and intent, failing which prosecution degenerates into an abuse of judicial process.

The bench also adverted to Seema v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., wherein proceedings were quashed because no firearm was recovered to connect the passenger with an intention to use the recovered cartridges for committing an offence.

"The doctrine of conscious possession requires not only physical possession but also awareness and intent... criminal liability under the Arms Act is stringent and must be construed strictly."

The court found that the prosecution record was completely bereft of any suspicious circumstances indicating that the petitioner consciously carried the single cartridge. Relying on settled precedents, the court observed that where the accused is not in conscious possession of the ammunition, he cannot be subjected to the rigours of a criminal trial under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Consequently, the High Court held that the petitioner could not be held liable for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and quashed the chargesheet and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 8406/2022 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts. The ruling reinforces the vital distinction between inadvertent physical transit and culpable conscious possession, insulating bona fide travellers from oppressive criminal litigation.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2026