Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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.

 

Similar News