Live Cartridge Possession Ruling, No Offence for Live Cartridge: Kerala HC

Live Cartridge Possession Ruling, No Offence for Live Cartridge: Kerala HC

The recent ruling by the Kerala High Court stated that possession of a live cartridge without a corresponding weapon does not constitute an offense under the Arms Act.

The court emphasized that possession of a firearm under the Act requires a mental element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession. Mere custody or physical possession without awareness does not amount to an offense.

In this particular case, the petitioner, a businessman from Maharashtra, possessed a license to possess arms within his state. While he was waiting to board a flight at Kannur Airport, a live cartridge was discovered in his baggage during a security check.

The petitioner claimed to be unaware of how the cartridge ended up in his bag. However, an FIR was registered against him under relevant sections of the Arms Act.

The petitioner's lawyers argued that he was not in conscious possession of the ammunition and that a single live cartridge without a corresponding firearm should be considered a minor ammunition protected under the Act. They contended that the offense under Section 25 of the Act could not be made out.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Arms Act and referred to a Supreme Court case, Gunwantlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972), which highlighted the requirement of intention, consciousness, or knowledge for an offense under Section 25(1)(a) of the Act.

The court concluded that possession of a firearm under Section 25 involves a mental element, and in this case, since no corresponding firearm was recovered and there was no evidence of conscious intention to possess the live cartridge, the offense could not be established.

The court also noted that the statements of witnesses did not support the prosecution's claim that the petitioner possessed the live cartridge with conscious intent. Additionally, no firearm was recovered from the petitioner or any other passenger.

Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayanan appeared on behalf of the respondents in this case.


Case Title: Shantanu Yadav Rao Hire v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy