Bombay HC quashes proceedings against Ayurvedic doctor held in possession of live cartridge

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against an Ayurvedic doctor from Sangli, who had been arrested from airport for being in the alleged possession of one live cartridge.

Taking note of the fact that the Dr. Nandeshwar had denied having any knowledge of the cartridge, and after perusing the chargesheet and other relevant documents, the HC bench comprising of Justices S S Shinde and M N Jadhav opined that she was not in conscious possession of the cartridge.

Therefore, quashing all the proceedings against her, the bench observed, "On going through the entire evidence, we are of the considered opinion that possession of the live cartridge in the hand bag of the Petitioner could not be to mean that she was in conscious possession of the live cartridge and further in the absence of recovery of the fire arm / weapon, benefit of doubt needs to be given to the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 

The case concerned an Ayurvedic doctor from Sangli, who got arrested when one live cartridge was recovered from her hand baggage during the security check screening at the Mumbai Airport, where she was boarding a flight to Kochi. When the petitioner had been directed to open her bag, the officers at the Airport had found one "K.F." and "32S&WL" live cartridge.

Although the petitioner claimed before the security that she had no knowledge how the live cartridge was found in her bag. In fact, at that time, the petitioner had also stated that the gun could pertain to the toy gun of her daughter who might have put it in the bag while playing. Apart from claiming not to have any knowledge or nexus with the alleged cartridge, the petitioner had also informed that she had no arms license for holding any weapon.

Also Read: Treatment at Gun Point! Doctor held guilty for carrying Gun, treating patients in drunken state

Apart from the live cartridge, no fire arm or weapon had been recovered from the petitioner doctor's bag. Following this, a First Information Report (FIR) had been registered against her under sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.

The next day, the petitioner doctor visited the police station and furnished the further information stating that she was a resident of Sangli and adjacent to her residence was a police centre and firing range. Therefore, she claimed that the alleged bullet may have been found and picked up by her minor daughter, who probably had carried it to her house and kept it in her hand bag.

Following this, the petitioner had been arrested and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai and was granted bail. Meanwhile, after completing the prove, police filed the chargesheet.

The counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that the Chargesheet clearly revealed that the she had disclosed all the necessary and probable information with respect to the live cartridge found in her hand bag. Her counsel further claimed that the petitioner doctor had no nexus or knowledge as to how it came to be planted or found in her bag and one of the reasons could be the fact that it was found by her minor daughter in the vicinity of the police training center and firing range next to her residence in Sangli.

It was submitted by the petitioner doctor's counsel that she never claimed to be in conscious possession of the live cartridge as the first time she came to know about this was when her hand bag got detected during screening. Contending it to be a case of complete inadvertance, the counsel argued that the petitioner doctor's case cannot be covered under the provisions of sections 3 and 25 of the said Act.

The counsel further referred to the fact that both the petitioner and her husband are qualified doctors having no criminal antecedents and none of them had any arms licence for possessing a weapon. 

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State referred to the Chargesheet and contended that during the investigation the Petitioner had also informed that the live cartridge could belong to one of their family friend namely Piyush Thakkar who was in possession of an arms licence and weapon. On further investigation of the said person Piyush Thakkar, it had been found that the live cartridge did not belong to him as it was not in consonance with his 9mm German Pistol.

The State further submitted that the cartridge was analyzed by the Forensic Science Laboratory in its report and the possession of the same was unauthorized in the hands of the petitioner. Therefore, the state argued that the prima facie the case for contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 25(1B)(a) of the said Act was made out against the Petitioner.