Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

 

Latest Legal News