#Arms Act 1959

The Supreme Court reiterated that conviction under the Arms Act demands proof of 'conscious possession'-mere recovery of weapons without evidence of dominion or knowledge is insufficient. The ruling sets a critical precedent for extremist-related prosecutions, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to establish active control over seized arms.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that licensing authorities cannot reject arms license renewals solely because a criminal case is pending. A concrete evaluation of public safety risk under Section 17(3)(b) is mandatory - mere registration of an FIR, without evidence linking the firearm to the alleged offense, is insufficient. This protects lawful license holders from arbitrary administrative action and reinforces procedural fairness in firearm regulation.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that when a prima facie case of firearm misuse is established under Section 30 of the Arms Act - such as harsh firing during a public event - the licensing authority may cancel the licence even before trial concludes. This sets a critical precedent for public safety over individual possession rights during ongoing criminal proceedings.

Karnataka High Court rules that a 177-caliber air rifle does not qualify as an 'arm' under the Arms Act, 1959, based on forensic evidence, quashing FIR and charge sheet against a student. The judgment clarifies that licensing requirements under Section 28 do not extend to air rifles, impacting future prosecutions under the Act.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that licensing authorities under the Arms Act, 1959, are not bound by favorable recommendations if subsequent police verification reports raise adverse findings. This underscores the discretionary power of authorities in arms licensing, limiting judicial review to procedural fairness rather than merits.