2024 Supreme(Del) 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Amit Bansal, JJ.
Rajesh Kumar Lalan Goswami - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 749 of 2020
Decided On : 12-01-2024
Mr Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr Kumar Ankur, Mr Bipul Kedia, Mr Abhishek Yadav, Ms Krishna Jyoti Deka and Mr Irfan Hasieb, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Kaushal Jeet Kait, Advocates, for the Respondents-1 & 2.
Ms Sonu Bhatnagar, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Nishtha Mittal, Advocates, for the Respondents-3.
IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of the definition of 'firearms' under the Arms Act, 1959 and the exemption notification for 'firearm replicas' under the Arms Rules, 2016.
Headnote:
Firearms - Import of Guns for TV Shows and Theatrical Performances - Interpretation of Arms Act and Arms Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims to be the importer of guns for TV shows, films, and theatrical performances, arguing that the imported guns do not fall within the definition of 'firearms' under the Arms Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, accompanied by relevant material, for consideration and disposal within eight weeks.
Issues: Interpretation of the definition of 'firearms' under the Arms Act, 1959 and exemption notification for 'firearm replicas' under the Arms Rules, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's argument that the imported guns do not release a projectile and therefore should be treated as firearm replicas, as well as the need for a comprehensive representation to be made to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, to be considered and disposed of within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral) - The petitioner claims to be the importer of guns, which are used for TV shows, films, and theatrical performances.
2. 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"].
2.1. Based on this line of argument, it is also argued by Mr Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that there is, in fact, no requirement for the petitioner to obtain a license for the acquisition of guns in issue, as the provision made in that behalf in the 1959 Act, which is embedded in Section 3, concerns only a firearm.
3. Mr Sharma also claims that, although the license for arms and ammunition used for theatrical performances, films, and television productions is required to be obtained under Rule 42 of the Arms Rules, 2016 [in short, "2016 Rules"], an exemption notification dated 18.07.2016 has been issued for "firearm replicas".
3.1. In sum, it is the petitioner's case that the guns imported by him stand on the same footing as firearm replicas since they do not, as indicated above, release a projectile.
4. It is stated that what is fired are blank cartridges which emit sound but not a projectile.
5. Given this position, we have put to Mr Sharma as to whether the petitioner would like to make a representation to respondent no.2, i.e., UOI through the Ministry of Home Affairs so that the forensic report placed before us and the other materials can be examined by the concerned authority in the first instance.
6. Mr Sharma, on instructions, says that the petitioner will make a representation to respondent no.2/UOI and that the court may direct disposal of the representation within a stipulated timeframe.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner will make a comprehensive representation, which will be accompanied by the relevant material for consideration of respondent no.2/UOI.
7.1. Once such a representation is made, the same will be considered and disposed of via a speaking order within eight (08) weeks.
8. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
9. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.