Expression 'Unnecessary Delay' In Depositing Gun After Expiry Of Licence Too Vague For Initiating Criminal Prosecution: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the expression “without unnecessary delay” used in Section 21(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 in context of surrendering an arm after expiry of its license is too vague and thus, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution unless.Justice V G Arun held thus while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, who was charged for depositing his licensed gun three months after the expiry of his licence. “The expression 'without unnecessary delay' in Section 21(1) of the Act being vague, failure to deposit the arm immediately after expiry of the licence cannot result in the licencee being compelled to face criminal prosecution.” the Court observed. The petitioner had applied for renewal ten days before the expiry and eventually deposited the weapon in a licensed armoury on 18.03.2017 which was three months after the expiry of licence. The prosecution alleged violation of Section 21 (1) read with Section 25 (1-B)(h), which mandates deposit of arms after licence expiry “without unnecessary delay.” It was further submitted that as per Rule 24 (2) of the Arms Rules, 2016 the licencee is bound to apply for renewal for licence 60 days prior to the date of expiry. The Court emphasised the principle of 'Nulla poena sine lege' - no penalty without law - holding that penal provisions must be clear, specific and precise, to prevent arbitrary enforcement. It observed that the Arms Rules 2016, allow consideration of renewal applications even after expiry if the delay is not “unduly long", underscoring the absence of a strict statutory deadline. It cited Devasia Mathew v State of Kerala and Others (2017) where deposit of the arm within six months of expiry of the licence was held to be deposit made without unnecessary delay.In the present case, the Court found that a three month delay did not, by itself, constitute an “unnecessary delay” warranting criminal liability. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Case Title: Elvin John Mathew v State of Kerala Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 494Case No: Crl. M C 979/ 2022Counsel for Petitioner - Sasthmangalam S Ajithkumar (Sr.), Sreejith S NairCounsel for Respondent - Sanal P Raj (PP)Click Here to Read/ Download Judgment

Expression 'Unnecessary Delay' In Depositing Gun After Expiry Of Licence Too Vague For Initiating Criminal Prosecution: Kerala High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags