Non-Projectile Guns for Entertainment Do Not Require License: Delhi High Court Rules on Arms Act

133
0
Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Document Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

In a latest judgment, the Delhi High Court clarified the legal standing of non-projectile guns used in the entertainment industry. The court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, ruled that such guns, used primarily for TV shows, films, and theatrical performances, do not fall under the definition of “firearms” as per the Arms Act, 1959, thus not requiring a license.

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Lalan Goswami, represented by Mr. Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, Senior Advocate, argued that the guns imported by him, which do not release a projectile, should be exempt from licensing requirements under the Arms Act. The court observed, “It is the petitioner’s case that since the guns imported do not release a projectile, they do not fall within the purview of the definition of ‘firearms’ as provided under Section 2(e) of the Arms Act, 1959 [in short, ‘1959 Act’].” This pivotal observation formed the crux of the court’s decision.

Further deliberation focused on the nature of the imported guns, which only fire blank cartridges, producing sound but not a projectile. The court noted, “What is fired are blank cartridges which emit sound but not a projectile.” This technical distinction was significant in the court’s evaluation of whether such items qualify as firearms.

The court also addressed the Arms Rules, 2016, and a specific exemption notification dated 18.07.2016 for “firearm replicas.” The petitioner contended that the imported guns were akin to these replicas, as they similarly did not discharge a projectile.

In a constructive move, the court suggested the petitioner make a representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs (respondent no.2), allowing the authorities to review the forensic report and related materials. This step is seen as a way to facilitate a more detailed examination of the technical aspects of the guns in question.

The judgment concluded with the court disposing of the writ petition and directing the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, to be considered and responded to within eight weeks.

Date of Decision: 12 January 2024

RAJESH KUMAR LALAN GOSWAMI VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Download Judgment

Share: