Purposive Interpretation Necessary: High Court at Calcutta Clarifies Arbitration Scope “If the Testimony is True, We Act on It”: Kerala High Court Upholds Convictions in Divakaran Murder Case State Cannot Utilize Private Land Without Legal Acquisition and Compensation: High Court Upholds Lower Courts’ Rulings Delhi High Court Stresses ‘Procedure is the Handmaid of Justice’ in Allowing New Evidence in IFFCO TOKIO Case Mere Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Allahabad High Court Acquits Rajveer Singh in Murder Case Non-Compliance with Labor Laws Cannot Deny Compensation for Informal Workers: Bombay High Court in Motor Accident Case Limitation Period Starts from Fraud Discovery, Not Sale Execution,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Testamentary Court’s Role is Limited to Verifying Testamentary Disposition: Calcutta High Court Declares Appellant Cannot Say at One Time That a Process Is Valid to Gain an Advantage and Then Turn Around and Say It Is Invalid When the Result Is Unfavorable,” Rules High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh A humane approach is warranted in cases involving senior citizens: High Court Grants Relief in Bank Loan Recovery Case, Allows Installment Repayments Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act is Mandatory”: High Court Acquits Accused in Ganja Case Unregistered Lease Deed Admissible Under Section 90 Evidence Act: Orissa High Court Restores Permanent Injunction Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used as "Backdoor Appeal" to Introduce New Evidence in Land Acquisition Cases: Supreme Court Payment Under Minimum Wages Act Does Not Establish Employment Relationship: High Court on Res Judicata in Labour Court Proceedings Taxation Law | Reopening Assessment Beyond Four Years Requires Proof of Failure to Disclose: Delhi High Court Rigors of Section 37 Cannot Override Medical Priority: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail on Medical Grounds in NDPS Case Consumer Law | Mere Deterioration of Condition Post-Surgery Does Not Imply Medical Negligence Without Proof of Lack of Skill or Care: Supreme Court Supreme Court Declares Accessibility Rules for Disabled Must Be Mandatory, Strikes Down Voluntary Standards as "Ultra Vires" Court's Role Under Section 11(6A) is Limited to Verifying Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Refers Dispute to Arbitration Section 37 of the Partnership Act Entitles Outgoing Partner to Profits Derived from Firm Assets Post-Dissolution Until Final Settlement: Supreme Court Media Cannot Act as a Parallel Court: Kerala High Court Examines Media’s Right to Report Pending Criminal Cases and Court Proceedings

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