Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 600 (MP)

Jahangir Khan v. State of M. P.

2010-06-21

SANJAY YADAV

body2010
ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. The Petitioner by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality of order dated 6.7.1998 passed by District Magistrate, Bhopal, whereby, the Arms License No. 17/ 89 held by the Petitioner for 315 bore rifle has been revoked in exercise of power under Section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959. 3. The challenge is also to an order dated 23.2.2000 passed by Respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, Bhopal division, Bhopal; whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of revocation of Arms License has been dismissed. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the order of revocation are that, the Petitioner, an agriculturist and resident of village Islam Nagar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal was issued an Arms License bearing No. 17/89 to hold 315 bore rifle in 1989 which was renewed from time to time. 5. In the year 1992 the Petitioner was served with an order dated 22.4.1992, whereby, the aforesaid license was cancelled and the Petitioner was called upon to deposit the 315 bore rifle with the nearest police station. The Petitioner alleging that the order dated 22.4.1992 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing assailed the same in an appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 1959. The said appeal was, however, dismissed on 24.12.1992. The Petitioner thereafter preferred a petition before this Court against the order of revocation of license and the appellate order vide M.P. No. 1059/1993. The said Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 19.8.1994 and the order passed by appellate authority was set aside with a direction to decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 6. In pursuance to order in M.P. No. 1059/1993, the appellate authority on 15.5.1995 passed an order after hearing the Petitioner holding that, the revocation of license by the District Magistrate vide his order dated 22.4.1992 was not proper as the District Magistrate has not taken into consideration the entire factual aspect. The appellate authority by setting aside the order of revocation dated 22.4.1992 remitted the matter for reconsideration. 7. The appellate authority by setting aside the order of revocation dated 22.4.1992 remitted the matter for reconsideration. 7. The District Magistrate in pursuance to the order passed by appellate authority on 15.5.1995 called for report from Superintendent of Police, Bhopal who vide his report dated 25.6.1996 informed that two cases against the Petitioner under Section 107/1196 Code of Criminal Procedure are pending and there are no other criminal cases registered against him. The Superintendent of Police, Bhopal further informed that the cousin of the Petitioner, i.e., Massu @ Mushir is a dreaded criminal and the Petitioner has been helping him internally. It is on the basis of aforesaid report the District Magistrate, Bhopal passed an order dated 6.7.1998 revoking the Armed License No. 17/89 of 315 bore rifle. An appeal preferred by the Petitioner against said order also suffered dismissal by order dated 23.2.2000; feeling aggrieved, whereof, the Petitioner has preferred this petition. 8. The sole ground on which the Petitioner assails the order of revocation of Arm License is that the same is based on surmises and conjectures. It is urged that there being no material evidence on record to justify that the Petitioner is involved in illegal activities and has misused the terms of license the order of revocation is erroneous in law. It is further urged that there is no evidence on record that the Petitioner ever associated himself with the said Massu @ Mushir in illegal activities. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that it is merely on suspicion that the arm license of the Petitioner has been revoked. The order, it is urged, therefore, suffers from patent error of law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by High Court of Allahabad Bench in Ram Bahadur Singh v. The District Magistrate, Deoria and others: AIR 1991 All 110 , Heera Lal Verma v. Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal, Nainital and others AIR 1992 All. 10 and Sita Ram Dixit v. Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad Division and others AIR 1992 All 252 to bring home his submission that merely on the basis of suspicion an arm license duly issued under the Act of 1959 cannot be revoked. 10. The Respondents on their turn has supported the action taken by District Magistrate in revoking the arms license of the Petitioner. 10. The Respondents on their turn has supported the action taken by District Magistrate in revoking the arms license of the Petitioner. It is urged that there was ample material on record before the District Magistrate as also the report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal regarding the antecedents of the Petitioner which was sufficient ground for revocation of license of the Petitioner under Section 17(3) of the Act of 1959. It is further urged that, the appellate authority also duly considered the appeal preferred by the Petitioner and rejected the same by reasoned order. It is further contended that since the petition is devoid of substance, it warrants no interference and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Considered the submissions put-forth by Learned Counsel for respective parties. 12. Admittedly, as is borne out from the record, on the date of consideration two cases under Section 107/116 Code of Criminal Procedure. were pending against the Petitioner and there were no other criminal cases against him nor is there any material on record suggesting involvement of the Petitioner in any criminal matter. On the contrary the Superintendent of Police categorically stated in his report dated 25.6.1996 that the Petitioner has been acquitted in two criminal cases for offences under Sections 294, 506, 186, 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 451 and 323 Indian Penal Code. 13. The Superintendent of Police; however, further observed in his report that the Petitioner happens to be cousin of Massu @ Musheer Khan, a history-sheeter against whom 14 criminal cases are registered in various Police Stations under Arms Act, riot, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, The Explosive Act, 1884, Electricity theft, Forest as well as two cases under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and that he was apprehended in the year 1993 under National Security Act. The report further states that the Petitioner being a close relative of said Massu @ Mashir has been internally helping him and because of the influence exerted by the Petitioner, persons in the locality are afraid to speak against him. It is the aforesaid report on the basis whereof the District Magistrate in exercise of his power under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act has revoked the Arm license of the Petitioner. 14. It is the aforesaid report on the basis whereof the District Magistrate in exercise of his power under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act has revoked the Arm license of the Petitioner. 14. The question is whether in absence of cogent material on record the District Magistrate was justified in revoking the Arms License merely on the basis of suspicion and the assumption drawn by the Superintendent of Police vide his report dated 25.6.1996. 15. Section 17 of the Act of 1959 empowers the licensing authority to suspend the license for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence. The conditions whereon the license can be suspended or revoked are stipulated in Sub-section (3) of Section 17, i.e. (i) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (iii) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or (iv) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (v) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under Sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence. 16. Thus, only when any of the aforesaid five conditions are fulfilled that an arm license can be suspended or revoked under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act of 1959. 17. In the case at hand admittedly only an offence under Section 107/116 of Code of Criminal Procedure was reportedly registered against the Petitioner on the date of consideration. The antecedent fact revealed that the Petitioner was acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 506, 186, 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 451 and 323 Indian Penal Code. 17. In the case at hand admittedly only an offence under Section 107/116 of Code of Criminal Procedure was reportedly registered against the Petitioner on the date of consideration. The antecedent fact revealed that the Petitioner was acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 506, 186, 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 451 and 323 Indian Penal Code. It was merely on the basis of suspicion raised by Superintendent of Police that the Petitioner was internally helping a criminal which formed the basis for arriving at a conclusion by the District Magistrate that the security of the public peace or public safety has been put to peril; however, there is no cogent material to substantiate the aforesaid suspicion drawn by the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate. 18. In Sita Ram Dixit (supra) it was observed by His Lordship "even a criminal tendency or enmity by itself cannot be a ground for revocation." This Court is in complete agreement with the observation of His Lordship because, in the given facts of the present case there is no material available on record to suggest that the Petitioner has misused the fire-arm licensed to him and an apprehension that the Petitioner is a close relative of a criminal ipso factor cannot be a ground for revocation of a license. 19. In Ram Bahadur Singh (supra) it was observed by his Lordship: 4. The second ground taken in the impugned order that there is likelihood of abuse of fire-arm by the son of the Petitioner is also not tenable. In Awadesh Kumar v. District Magistrate (1989) 15 All LR 519 : 1989 All LJ 1053 it was held that mere suspicion or possibility of abuse of the fire arm by others without any positive evidence is not a ground for suspension of the license. In view of the law laid down by this Court the second ground for suspension of fire-arm licence also suffers from patent error of law. 20. In view of above the impugned order passed by District Magistrate Bhopal revoking the fire-arm licence No. 17/89 of the Petitioner being not sustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order passed in appeal also crumbles. 21. In the result petition is allowed. The order dated 6.7.1998 and 23.2.2000 are set aside. However, no costs.