The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR filed against Mohd Tarique Rehman, who was caught with a live round of ammunition in his baggage at Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport. The court ruled that his possession of the cartridge was unintentional and did not constitute “conscious possession” under the Arms Act, 1959.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on March 29, 2021, when security officials at IGI Airport detected a suspicious object in Rehman’s baggage during screening. A physical search led to the recovery of a live round of ammunition. Since he could not produce any valid authorization for the cartridge, an FIR (No. 106/2021) was registered at P.S. IGI Airport under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Rehman, a student in Dublin, South Africa, claimed that he had unknowingly carried the cartridge. He explained that his dormitory mates frequently borrowed his baggage for visits to shooting ranges, and one of them may have inadvertently left the round inside. He insisted that he had no knowledge of its presence until it was discovered by airport security.
Legal Issues Considered by the Court
The primary legal issue before the court was whether possession of the live round amounted to conscious possession, a requirement under the Arms Act for prosecuting an individual.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, who presided over the case, relied on precedents such as:
Sonam Chaudhary v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Mitali Singh v. NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (II) Crimes
Rahul Mamgain v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
The court observed that in similar cases, FIRs were quashed when it was evident that possession was accidental and lacked criminal intent.
Court’s Ruling
After considering the facts, the court found no evidence that Rehman had the awareness or intent required to establish conscious possession. The order stated:
“The doctrine of conscious possession requires not only physical possession but also awareness and intent, neither of which are established here.”
Additionally, there was no mens rea (criminal intent) or any indication that the cartridge was carried for unlawful purposes. The court noted that no firearm was recovered, and Rehman had no criminal antecedents. It concluded that prosecuting him would amount to an abuse of legal process.
However, the court also emphasized that greater vigilance on Rehman’s part could have prevented the situation. Recognizing the security concerns involved, the court imposed a fine of ₹25,000, payable to the Delhi Police Welfare Fund.
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and directed Rehman to submit proof of the fine payment within 15 days. The case has now been disposed of.
