Offences Related To Firearms And Arms Act
Overview of the Arms Act, 1959
The Arms Act, 1959 regulates the possession, manufacture, sale, transfer, and use of arms and ammunition in India.
The Act aims to control illegal firearms and prevent their misuse.
It prescribes penalties and punishment for various offences related to arms and ammunition.
Common Offences under the Arms Act
Illegal possession of arms or ammunition (Section 25)
Possessing arms or ammunition without a valid license is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Manufacture or sale of arms without license (Section 27)
Punishable with imprisonment and fines.
Using arms to commit a crime (Section 27A)
Using illegal arms for committing or facilitating a crime invites enhanced punishment.
Carrying arms openly without license (Section 30)
Carrying prohibited arms openly is an offence.
Failure to produce license when demanded (Section 38)
Producing a valid license upon request by police is mandatory.
Punishment and Severity
Punishments vary from imprisonment up to 7 years, fines, or both.
Enhanced penalties for repeat offenders or use in commission of crimes.
Important Case Laws on Offences under the Arms Act
1. State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63
Facts: Accused was charged with illegal possession of arms without license.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving a valid license rests on the accused once prosecution proves possession. Mere possession is a strong evidence of offence.
Significance: Clarified that possession itself creates a presumption of guilt under Arms Act; accused must prove lawful possession.
2. Union of India v. Palaniappa Chettiar, AIR 1963 SC 150
Facts: Question of whether illegal manufacture of arms can be exempted under any circumstances.
Judgment: Court held no exemption; manufacture of arms without license is a serious offence under Section 27.
Significance: Emphasized strict prohibition on manufacture/sale without license.
3. Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 1247
Facts: Accused was charged for carrying firearms openly without a license.
Judgment: Supreme Court held carrying arms openly without license is a clear offence under Section 30. Public safety concerns justify strict interpretation.
Significance: Reaffirmed that carrying arms openly without license is not permissible.
4. Sant Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1259
Facts: Accused was charged for using illegal firearms to commit robbery.
Judgment: The court observed enhanced punishment provisions apply and stressed the danger to society from misuse of firearms.
Significance: Affirmed that use of illegal arms in crime attracts heavier sentences.
5. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 382
Facts: Question of whether ammunition alone without arms also constitutes an offence.
Judgment: The Court held possession of ammunition without license is equally punishable.
Significance: Expanded the scope to include ammunition as well as arms under regulatory control.
6. Surendra Nath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 10
Facts: Accused challenged conviction claiming the weapon was not arms under Arms Act.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held the definition of arms is wide and includes various firearms and weapons listed under the Act.
Significance: Clarified the scope of “arms” under the Act.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Offence | Key Point |
|---|---|
| Illegal possession (Sec 25) | Presumption of guilt once possession is proved; accused must prove license. |
| Manufacture without license (Sec 27) | Strictly prohibited; no exemptions. |
| Use of arms in crime (Sec 27A) | Enhanced punishment for use during commission of crime. |
| Carrying arms openly (Sec 30) | Strictly forbidden without license. |
| Possession of ammunition | Equally punishable as possession of arms. |
Conclusion
The Arms Act, 1959 is a stringent law aimed at controlling illegal arms and ammunition. The judiciary has consistently upheld strict interpretation to safeguard public safety. Possession without license attracts serious consequences, and use of arms in criminal activity invites harsher punishment. The above cases illustrate the principles of burden of proof, scope of arms, and importance of licensing.
RELATED Blog
0 comments