Section 3. Prohibition of possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without license
Save as provided by section 4, no person shall possess wireless telegraphy apparatus except under and in accordance with a license issued under this Act.
How courts have applied section 3
- Quashing of Wireless Telegraphy Act charges requires specific averments of unlicensed possession or operation of apparatus; bare allegations of fraud or cheating are insufficient.1,2,3
- Section 3 charges were quashed where no allegation of running services without a licence appeared, even as IPC offences continued.4
- Some orders noted the Telecommunications Act, 2023 repealed the earlier statutes including the Wireless Telegraphy Act.4
- Bail under Section 3-related cases was frequently granted purely on parity with a similarly placed co-accused.5,6,7
- The Supreme Court held that Section 6(1A) survived the repeal of the 1949 Amendment Act through Section 6A of the General Clauses Act.8
- In most bail orders, the Section 3 charge received no separate substantive analysis.9,10,11
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here are dominated by bail and quashing applications in which Section 3 features among many charges, and courts rarely engage with its text. Most orders are routine dispositions: bail granted on the ground of parity with a co-accused, bail allowed where the substratum of the prosecution case was destroyed by the acquittal of co-accused, an application dismissed as not pressed, another dismissed for want of prosecution, and criminal revisions set aside for denial of hearing. In many of these, Section 3 is simply listed among offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act alongside crimes under the Telegraph Act, Information Technology Act, or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, without separate analysis.5,6,12,7,13,14,15,16,17,9,10
In quashing petitions, courts in these orders repeatedly held that Section 3 was not attracted where the complaint lacked clear averments of possession or operation of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a licence. Sections 3 and 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act were quashed where there was no allegation that services were run without a licence. Some of these orders noted that the Telecommunications Act of 2023 repealed the earlier statutes, though the quashing was based primarily on the absence of factual allegations. The substantive Supreme Court judgement in the corpus addressed the survival of Section 6(1A), inserted by the 1949 Amendment Act, after its repeal, holding that Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, saved the amendment.1,2,3,4,8
The recurring pattern in the bail matters is that the courts did not examine the merits of the Section 3 charge; the outcome turned on the usual bail considerations such as parity, custody period, lack of criminal history, and the absence of tampering risk. One anticipatory bail order reasoned that since the premises had been searched and the offences were borne out of records, there was no risk of tampering. Where the State disputed nothing material and the applicant had been in custody for a substantial period, bail was granted.5,6,10,7
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 3
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 6(1A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, remained valid. The Court ruled that although the amending Act of 1949 was repealed in 1952, section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, saved the amendment inserted into the principal Act, as the word…
DismissedOpenCriminal revision allowed — attachment of immovable property under Section 107(2)/(4) B.N.S.S. — ex-parte order dated 16.03.2026 passed by CJM, Court No. 17, Deoria in Misc. Case No.
Bail granted on parity — Mohd. Arif v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32559 of 2025, decided September 22, 2025 by Krishan Pahal, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Offences: B.N.S. Sections 3(5), 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2); Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act Sections 3, 6;
Junaid vs State of U.P.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25938 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Samit Gopal, J.; decided September 25, 2025; bail application dismissed for want of prosecution; no appearance by applicant's counsel; Section 483 BNSS; BNS Ss. 318(4), 61(2), 111(4)(5);
Bail allowed on parity with co-accused; petitioner Md. Nafees Iqbal @ Nafiz Iqbal, foreign national with valid passport, visa expired in custody, undertaking to revive visa; Baduria PS Case 188/2023 dated 10/4/2023;
AllowedOpenBail granted on parity — Applicant Mirza Asad sought bail in Case Crime No. 3 of 2023, Police Station A.T.S./Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Sections 3 & 6 Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, Sections 4, 20, 21, 25 Indian Telegraphy Act and Sections 66-A, 66-D Information…
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
The High Court of Telangana partially allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR proceedings. The court quashed charges under Sections 66-C, 66-D of the IT Act, and the Telegraph Acts due to lack of substantive allegations, but permitted the investigation to continue regarding offences under Sections 417,…
Partly allowedOpenThe High Court partially allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It quashed proceedings regarding specific IT Act and telecommunications offences due to lack of specific allegations, but permitted the investigation to continue under IPC fraud sections which were found attracted by the facts.
Partly allowedOpenGrave Criminal petition filed to quash FIR 39/2024 for cheating and cyber offenses. The High Court quashed proceedings against Accused No. 5 (Petitioner) for specific IT and Telecom Act offenses due to lack of averments on identity theft and license possession, while permitting investigation to continue for IPC…
Partly allowedOpenIn a quashing petition by a company director against an FIR for alleged online payment-gateway fraud, the court found no averments of identity theft or cheating by personation, so Sections 66-C and 66-D of the IT Act were not attracted;
Partly allowedOpenAccused sought quashing of a split-up criminal case after co-accused were acquitted. The High Court held that the unchallenged acquittal destroyed the substratum of the prosecution case and quashed all pending proceedings against the petitioner.
AllowedOpenCalcutta High Court; C. R. M. (DB) 990 of 2024; bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed 15.03.2024; Baduria Police Station Case No.188 of 2023 dated 10.04.2023; G.R. Case No.1347 of 2023; Sections 120B/419/420 IPC; Sections 4/20/25 Indian Telegraph Act; Section 3/6 Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act; petitioner Md.
WithdrawnOpen
Criminal revision allowed — attachment of immovable property under Section 107(2)/(4) B.N.S.S. — ex-parte order dated 16.03.2026 passed by CJM, Court No. 17, Deoria in Misc. Case No.
Bail granted on parity — Mohd. Arif v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32559 of 2025, decided September 22, 2025 by Krishan Pahal, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Offences: B.N.S. Sections 3(5), 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2); Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act Sections 3, 6;
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of operating illegal telecom setups and using SIM boxes, noting they were first-time offenders and no evidence tampering was likely. The court imposed strict conditions including weekly police reporting.
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Madras granted bail to petitioner Krishnamoorthy Gowtham in a case involving illegal bulk SMS operations and telecom fraud. The court imposed bond and reporting conditions.
AllowedOpenNazim Nasim Khan @ Naazim Patel Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Outcome: AllowedIn this bail application, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed the release of the applicant on bail, relying on the principle of parity with co-accused who were previously granted bail in similar FIR No. 3 of 2023 for cheating and forgery offences.
AllowedOpenNazim Nasim Khan @ Naazim Patel vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Outcome: AllowedThe Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, appeals addressed the bail application of Nazim Nasim Khan. The court allowed bail based on the principle of parity with co-accused already released. The applicant was ordered released on personal bonds and sureties.
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Application for bail entertained. Court found evidence linking applicant to offence based on recovery of electronic instruments from his rented house to be weak as recovery was not in his presence. Granted bail with conditions and sureties.
AllowedOpenThis bail application was disposed of by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which enlarged the applicant on bail. The court noted prima facie weak evidence linking the accused to the offence due to the absence of witnesses during recovery and granted bail subject to conditions.
AllowedOpenThe High Court granted bail to an accused allegedly implicated in running an illegal telephone exchange. The court accepted that the allegations are triable by a Magistrate and the applicant could be secured by conditions, allowing his release on personal bond with sureties.
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Kerala disposed of an application for anticipatory bail. The court denied the relief, noting that serious allegations involving supply of equipment for a parallel telephone exchange attracted the relevant acts and could adversely affect investigation.
DismissedOpen