Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sunil Dutt Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow & Anr., has held that license conditions are not violated when pistols are fired for the purpose of self defence.

What is the Background of Sunil Dutt Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the applicant along with others was involved in firing with the intent to cause harm to the complainant and others but no injuries were reported.
• The applicant had been charge-sheeted under Sections 286, 323, 504, and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 30 of the Arms Act 1959.
• The applicant filed an application before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking the release of his licensed pistol and four cartridges, but the application was rejected.
• Aggrieved by this, the applicant approached the Allahabad High Court.
• The High Court set aside the order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that firing a pistol in self-defence does not violate license conditions and does not appear to be an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Arms Act, 1959

• This Act consolidates and amends the law relating to Arms and Ammunition.
  • The main objective of this Act is to regulate and restrict the circulation of arms and ammunition, which were illegal.
  • This Act recognized the necessity for certain law-abiding citizens to possess and use firearms for certain specific purposes including self-defence.
  • It came into force on 1^st October 1962.
• Section 30 of this Act deals with the punishment for contravention of licence or rule.
  • It states that whoever contravenes any condition of a licence or any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder, for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 286 of IPC

• This section deals with negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances.
• It states that whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
• It is a cognizable, bailable offence which is triable by any magistrate.