UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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