Licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in certain cases
Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 deals with licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in certain cases. If the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances prevailing in any area it is necessary or expedient in the public interest that the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than firearms should also be regulated, it may, by notification in the Official Gazett The Act came into force on 01 Oct 1962.
If the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances prevailing in any area it is necessary or expedient in the public interest that the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than firearms should also be regulated, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that this section shall apply to the area specified in the notification, and thereupon no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry in that area arms of such class or description as may be specified in that notification unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
Section 4, The Arms Act, 1959 (Act 54 of 1959).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Maharashtra Etc vs Mehmood Khan Yakub Khan Pathan Etc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The commission of an offense by the accused that would constitute 'continuing unlawful activity' is an essential and independent requirement for conviction under Section 3 of MCOCA, separate and distinct from the requirement of proving previous charge sheets and cognizance. Merely filing previous charge sheets and taking cognizance in those cases does not by itself constitute an offense under MCOCA. An organized crime offense must be committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOCA involving unlawful activity by use of threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means with the objective of gaining pecuniary or other advantages. If the prosecution fails to prove this independent requirement—namely, the commission of an organized crime after MCOCA's promulgation—the accused cannot be convicted under Section 3 of MCOCA, notwithstanding evidence of previous criminal history.
On this section: Respondents were charged under Arms Act in both underlying crimes and MCOCA cases; acquittal under Arms Act in MCOCA cases was significant as it removed one ingredient of the prosecution's case.
-
Shilpa Sonu Singh vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused woman has undergone substantial incarceration (approximately two years) pending trial on serious charges, and considering her gender as a recognized factor in bail jurisprudence, bail may be granted on humanitarian grounds even when the High Court has previously rejected the bail application, without detailed examination of the charge's gravity or the evidence's strength.
On this section: Charges related to illegal manufacture/sale of arms
-
Anilan v. State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Arms Act s.27 for arms other than firearms requires a prior Central Government notification under s.4 specifying the area and class/description of arms; absent proof that swords/iron pipes were notified arms for that area, s.27 conviction cannot stand (following Stephen). IPC house-trespass/hurt convictions separately sustained with sentence modified.
On this section: s.4 notification as sine qua non for non-firearm s.27 offence — no notification proved; Arms Act conviction set aside
-
Simranjot Singh vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is already in criminal custody and the authorities seek preventive detention based on the same or related criminal conduct, the authorities must first pursue the available remedy of bail cancellation through ordinary criminal courts before resorting to preventive detention under special preventive detention laws. Preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for bail cancellation or as a punitive measure. Additionally, the distinction between 'law and order' (which affects individuals) and 'public order' (which affects the community at large) must be carefully maintained when invoking preventive detention. Furthermore, failure to respond to a representation against detention vitiates the detention order with illegality.
On this section: Sections under which the petitioner was charged in multiple FIRs for illegal possession of arms. The court noted the pattern of such charges across multiple FIRs.
-
Mohd. Zahir vs The Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Preventive detention under Public Safety Act cannot be invoked to circumvent or subvert ordinary criminal law remedies. Where a competent court has granted bail to an accused and the accused is facing trial while complying with bail conditions, preventive detention based on the same set of allegations cannot be justified without compelling reasons, as this violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The detaining authority must apply its mind to all material facts, including existing bail orders, and must consider representations within reasonable time. Failure to do so vitiates the detention order.
On this section: Offences related to arms mentioned in one of the FIRs against the detenue
-
Pritam Singh vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Preventive detention, being an exceptional measure, must be exercised with utmost care and only in compelling circumstances. When grounds of detention have been previously quashed by courts, they cannot be used again in subsequent detention orders. Additionally, there must exist a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the detention order. Stale criminal incidents from several years prior, without any fresh or recent criminal activity, cannot justify preventive detention. Courts have the power to quash patently illegal detention orders even at the pre-execution stage.
On this section: Sections under which FIRs were registered for illegal possession and use of arms
-
Rakesh Kumar Gudda vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Section 227-228 Cr.P.C., the court is required to determine whether material on record discloses a prima facie case against the accused. For this purpose, even strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges; the court need not assess whether evidence is sufficient for conviction. The court must examine prosecution evidence to find existence of prima facie case and ingredients of offence without conducting a mini-trial. Contradictions, inconsistencies or improbabilities in evidence should not be weighed heavily unless glaring or obvious. The court must confine itself to documents provided by prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and rival contentions of parties. Absence of material evidence linking accused to alleged offence or unreliability, inherent improbability and contradiction of evidence may be ground for discharge. In conspiracy cases, establishment of motive, recovery of weapon, and circumstantial evidence of association and communication between accused can collectively give rise to strong suspicion sufficient to frame charges, even if individual pieces of evidence may be contested.
On this section: Illegal possession and use of weapons; accused charged with providing knife used in murder
-
Rakesh Kumar Gudda vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is only required to consider whether the material on record, taken on its face value, discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Even strong suspicion against the accused for commission of alleged offence is good enough to frame a charge. The court need not assess whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. A confessional statement made by co-accused to police officer, though inadmissible against the person making it under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, does not vitiate the charge if other oral and circumstantial evidence, including motive, association, and recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement under Section 27, prima facie establishes involvement of the accused. Bail on medical grounds should be granted where the accused is suffering from serious medical conditions resistant to treatment and the trial has progressed sufficiently to reduce risk of witness tampering.
On this section: Charges framed for illegal possession and use of weapon (knife) in commission of murder
-
Rani Sagar Marne vs The State of Maharashtra Through Kothrud pstn
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving prima facie evidence of active participation in large-scale, well-organized criminal conspiracies involving extortion, threats, and forced property transfers, bail should be denied pending investigation when there is a reasonable possibility that release of the accused would result in threats to witnesses or further criminal activity, even if the accused is a woman with dependent children and is pursuing education, because witness protection and investigation integrity take precedence over personal hardship in such serious criminal matters.
On this section: Relates to illegal possession or use of arms. The applicant is charged under this section, though the order does not elaborate on the specific nature of the arms-related charge.
-
State Government vs Suilatian arf Chine
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through credible and corroborating evidence. Mere confessional statements without independent corroboration, absence of independent witnesses, lack of physical evidence of the alleged crime, contradictions in prosecution witness statements, and procedural deficiencies in arrest and seizure procedures collectively create reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. When such reasonable doubt exists, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, and they must be acquitted.
On this section: Punishment for illegal possession of ammunition - Applied to possession of live cartridges
-
Saddeek vs State of Rajasthan through P P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused in the same criminal case have been granted bail by the High Court, and the charge sheet has been presented in court, the principle of bail parity requires that bail should be granted to other accused in the same case, subject to satisfaction of the Trial Court, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.
On this section: Relates to illegal possession and use of firearms. The petitioner was charged under this section for unauthorized possession of arms.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… During investigation, complainant, Sanjay Singh himself was arrested on the basis of circumstantial evidence and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against him under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District Churu. Learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, Churu, for trial. In the trial, after framing charges against the accused respondent, statements of 21 prosecution …
Made under this section, and citing it
5 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 4
What have the courts held on Section 4 of the Arms Act?
State of Maharashtra Etc vs Mehmood Khan Yakub Khan Pathan Etc (24 Jul 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Respondents were charged under Arms Act in both underlying crimes and MCOCA cases; acquittal under Arms Act in MCOCA cases was significant as it removed one ingredient of the prosecution's case. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 4 of the Arms Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arms Act 4, section 4 Arms Act, section 4 of the Arms Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Maharashtra Etc vs Mehmood Khan Yakub Khan Pathan Etc (24 Jul 2015).
What should I read with Section 4 of the Arms Act, and has it changed?
7 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 5 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Notification No. S.O. 3872(E) dated 29.10.2019 (2019), then Arms Rules, 2016 (2016).
When did Section 4 of the Arms Act come into force?
Section 4 of the Arms Act, cited as Arms Act 4, came into force on 01 Oct 1962, having been enacted on 23 Dec 1959. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 25. Punishment for certain offences1755 words
- 2. Definitions and interpretation734 words
- 44. Power to make rules681 words
- 24A. Prohibition as to possession of notified arms in disturbed areas, etc618 words
- 17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences579 words
- 24B. Prohibition as to carrying of notified arms in or through public places in disturbed areas etc560 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.