Journalism of Courage
Advertisement

‘No suspicious circumstances pointed out’: Delhi High Court quashes FIR under Arms Act against foreign national

According to the FIR, a single live ammunition was detected in the petitioner’s handbag in January 2025, while she was departing from IGI Airport for Hong Kong.

delhi high court,According to the FIR, a single live ammunition was detected in her handbag in January 2025, while she was departing from IGI Airport for Hong Kong. (File photo)

The Delhi High Court on November 3 quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a foreign national under the Arms Act, stating that the material on record did not show “conscious possession” of a single live cartridge seized from her bag during airport screening.

The court stated that “only (a) single live cartridge was recovered from the baggage of (the) petitioner without any corresponding arms. Further, no suspicious circumstances have been pointed out in the FIR which would indicate that the possession of cartridge was conscious.”

The petition was taken up and decided on the first day of hearing. Courts usually issue notice and call for a counter-affidavit at this stage, but Justice Vikas Mahajan said that “the matter has been heard finally at the stage of issuance of notice itself without calling for the counter-affidavit as the matter is admittedly covered by various decisions of this Court.”

The petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines, working as a senior manager in a medical science company headquartered in Hong Kong, travels to India for professional engagements. The petition stated that she “lacks any background or experience that would suggest familiarity with or access to firearms or ammunition.”

According to the FIR, a single live ammunition was detected in her handbag in January 2025, while she was departing from IGI Airport for Hong Kong. She had arrived in India for a business meeting and training session, and told the authorities that she was unaware of the cartridge in her bag.

The petition also stated that she had “no knowledge, control or intent to possess the said ammunition.” And the mere presence of ammunition in her bag could not amount to conscious possession, which is an essential element for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on its February 2025 ruling in Mohd Tarique Rehman v State (NCT of Delhi) case, where it held that the doctrine of conscious possession requires both physical custody and awareness or intent.

From the homepage
Tags:
  • delhi high court
Edition
Install the Express App for
a better experience
Featured
Trending Topics
News
Multimedia
Follow Us
Express Investigation27 crypto exchanges under Govt lens: Over 2800 victims, Rs 600 crore laundered
X