Why Delhi High Court quashed FIR against man caught with live cartridge at IGI Airport

The Delhi High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a man from whose bag a live round of ammunition was recovered during baggage screening at the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport in 2021 [Mohd Tarique Rehman Vs State of NCT of Delhi]. .Justice Sanjeev Narula found that the accused Mohd Tarique Rehman was not in conscious possession of the recovered cartridge and that it was inadvertently left in his baggage. “It appears that the cartridge was inadvertently left in his baggage due to an unintentional oversight. The Petitioner remained unaware of its presence until it was detected by security personnel during screening at the airport. Given these circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that the Petitioner’s possession of the cartridge does not fall within the ambit of ‘conscious possession,’” the Court said. .Rehman claimed that he had found the ammunition near his residence and had kept it with the intent of making a locket. He was undergoing training in South Africa to become a commercial pilot. Today, he holds a commercial aircraft pilot license..The Court in the judgment dated February 28 noted that Rehman did not possess the ammunition with any culpable intent.“It is evident that the petitioner had no knowledge of the presence of the ammunition in his baggage. The doctrine of conscious possession requires not only physical possession but also awareness and intent, neither of which are established here. The material on record does not suggest any mens rea or culpable intent on the part of the petitioner, nor does it indicate that the ammunition was carried for any unlawful purpose,” it said. The Court also observed that no firearm was recovered from Rehman along with the ammunition and there is no allegation that he attempted to use the ammunition..The Court thus proceeded to quash the FIR, observing that no offence under Arms Act is made out. “Given that criminal liability under the Arms Act is stringent and must be construed strictly, the absence of any incriminating circumstances further reinforces the conclusion that the Petitioner does not fall within the mischief sought to be prevented by the statute. Consequently, no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is made out against the Petitioner,” the Court stated. However, the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Rehman, observing that the situation could have been avoided with greater care on his part. "Since the security agencies are required to treat all such incidents with seriousness, irrespective of intent, the initiation of criminal proceedings was a natural consequence of the lapse on the petitioner’s part. Accordingly, while the FIR is being quashed, this Court deems it appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner, as a measure to serve the ends of justice," it reasoned..Advocate Nishant Gupta appeared for the petitioner-accused.Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya with advocates Abhijeet Kumar and Anurag Arora appeared for the State.[Read Order]