Blog

Case Title – Pritpal Singh Vs. State

Case Number – CRL. M.C. 5732/2019 & CRL. M.C. 40024/2019

Dated on – 1^st of May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Amit Mahajan

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State, the Appellant, Pritpal Singh, was taken into custody by the police at the entrance of the US Embassy while he was entering for his visa interview. The police discovered 14 live cartridges in the possession of the Appellant. The Appellant in the said case had a license for the arms and ammunition but the same was valid until 31^st of December, 2017, and had expired at the time of the incident. During further investigation it was unveiled that the Appellant held a valid license (No. 539/PS) issued by the District Magistrate of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, permitting him to carry a 0.32 Caliber NPT bore weapon throughout India.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Appellant was in conscious possession of the live cartridges recovered from him?
Whether the possessions of the live cartridges amount to an offense under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 prescribes the Offense of possession of arms or ammunition without a valid license.
Section 45(D) of the Arms Act, 1959 prescribes the condition under which the possession of minor parts of arms or ammunition is not considered as an offense
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes the Power of the High Court to quash an FIR to prevent abuse of the process of court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellant, Pritpal Singh was unaware that the bag he carried contained 14 live cartridges.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the possession of the 14 cartridges with the Appellant was unconscious and unintentional.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellant possessed a valid arms license which authorized him to carry the weapon throughout India.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case did not allege conscious possession or mens rea behind carrying the cartridges.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the possession seemed to be unintended rather than intentional.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State, analysed the concept of conscious possession as interpreted by the varied judgments, inclusive of Gunwantlal Vs. State of M.P. and Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, Bombay. The court in this case, stressed that the possession of arms and ammunition under the Arms Act, 1959 require a mental element of consciousness or knowledge. Based on the facts presented and the legal precedents, the court in this case concluded that the possession of the live cartridges with the Appellant, Pritpal Singh, was unconscious and unintentional. As such, it did not amount to an offense under the section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The court also observed that the absence of the evidence suggesting conscious possession and that the prolongation of proceedings would be vain. Hence, the court in this present case, quashed the FIR and all the consequential proceedings. Furthermore, taking into consideration the involvement of the State machinery and to serve the ends of justice, the court imposed a cost of Rupees 50,000 on the Appellant, specifying the allocation of the money to various welfare funds and the bar associations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment