HARI KISHAN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Hari Kishan Singh S/o Jaipal Singh, has been chargesheeted in relation to FIR No.20/2014, Police Station Qutub Minar Metro, for the alleged possession of a live round (8MM KF-91) on 25.2.2014 at 12.35 hours at the Saket Metro Station (South Side X-BIS machine) when the same was detected by Ct. R.K.Rout (sitting on the machine) and Ct. Ghatage Sahas M. who was conducting the baggage checking and has thus been chargesheeted for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) The petitioner, vide this petition seeks the quashing of the said FIR submitting to the effect that the petitioner has a clean record, does his job peacefully, has a diploma in Electronics and works as a marketing executive and on 25.2.2014 at 11:15 a.m. he had started from his house at Sangam Vihar for Kashmiri Gate through a Gramin Sewa auto rickshaw and reached the Malviya Nagar Metro Station. He further states that there were 9 to 11 passengers seated in that auto and that when the DMRC officials informed him about the live cartridge, he was shocked and surprised in as much as he did not have any knowledge about the presence of one live cartridge in the side pocket of his bag which side pocket of his bag was half transparent (which was half made with jaali fabric) and did not have any zip or lock. The petitioner has further submitted that the final report i.e. the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 brings forth that there was no fire arm or any weapon of any kind recovered from the possession of the petitioner apart from the alleged recovery of that one live cartridge from the outside pocket of the bag of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that there is not a whisper of an averment in the charge sheet that he had conscious possession of the alleged cartridge. The petitioner has submitted that the charges against him have been framed and that the trial would take time and he seeks the quashing of the FIR, the quashing of the summoning order and the quashing of the charge sheet as he did not have any conscious knowledge of the presence of any live cartridge in the said pocket of his bag which was half transparent, unlocked and unzipped.

(3.) Inter alia, the petitioner submits that it is settled law that the expression 'possession' occurring in Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, means possession of the requisite element i.e. conscious possession and that mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession does not amount to any offence under the Arms Act, 1959.