_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Rachelle Joel Oseran v. The State of Maharashtra
Case Citation - Criminal Writ Petition No. 323 of 2017
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Parties Involved -
Appellant - Jatin P shah alongside Snehankita Munj, Mudit Gupta, Tushar Patel, Siddhartha Mehta, K.M. Jhangiani and Advocates.
Respondent - S.V. Sonawane, APP
Bench -
Justice R.M. Savant
Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
Facts of the Case
The petitioner is an Israelite citizen. She arrived in India on an educational tour from the "Mindful India Seminar." She is also a Yoga and Pilates coach.
In January 2015, she came to India for a conference, which would be held from 02/03/2015 to 17/03/2015. She was given a visa for three months from 14/01/2015 to 13/04/2015.
She carried her sweets, toys, and other items to a Rishikesh orphanage that she had planned to visit during the Seminar.
The petitioner was travelling to India with her friend and a travel agent named Miss Hillary Weiss. The petitioner borrowed a bag from Miss Hillary to keep her things, and the bag she borrowed was from Miss Hillary Weiss's husband, Mr Dani Weiss, who served in the Israel Army.
The petitioner and her friends arrived at Chatrapati Shivaji Airport, Mumbai, on 01/03/2015, with all her luggage. The petitioner's luggage was checked at the airport, but nothing was found. However, a live shell (`5.56 mm rifle cartridge) was found during the cargo inspection.
She was taken under arrest and transferred to the Sahar Police Station.
Issues of the Case
An Advocate came to Court to dismiss the current case because the reasons for the cases under Section 3 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 are not here at all. Except for the cartridge, no other incriminating material has been recovered from the petitioner.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The sine qua non for an offence under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act is the conscious possession of ammunition. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said ingredient is conspicuously absent in the instant case.
Petitioner and the learned APP for the State perused the charge sheet. Except for the recovery of the said bullet, no other incriminating material has been uncovered during the investigation to make the Petitioner guilty under Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
Arguments of the Respondent
Section 3 of the Arms Act,1959 prohibits a person from possessing an arm without a license. This means that all Indian Citizens can purchase, or be in possession of arms, only if they have a permit from the licensing authority.
Section 25[3] of the Arms Act, 1959 is an Indian Penal Code provision stating that if any person is found violating Section 3 of the Arms Act,1959, must be punished under the Act. An exception of the rule is that anyone with a license under authority can carry it for repair or use.
Judgment of the Case
The HC taking the similar facts of the precedents into account gave the judgment in the Petitioner's favour-
The required condition to be punishment under Section 3 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is to be in possession of the Arm itself.
In the present case, the petitioner will not be held liable for the discovery of the shell because it remained in her luggage without her knowledge. Therefore, there is no possibility of proceeding with a case under offences registered here.
The sheet for the petitioner does not disclose any offensive material in her possession. She then went with the Sahar Police Station and continued to cooperate with them.
In the case of "Sanjay Dutt v/s State through C.B.I., Bombay, it was said by the court that possession is defined as "possession with the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession."
Related Cases
References:
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Why Keeping Imaginary Guns Is Better Than Keeping Real Ones In India ? " by clicking the button below.
Comments