Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1253 (MP)

Ram Kumar Sharma v. State Of M. P.

2011-11-03

ANIL SHARMA, S.N.AGGARWAL

body2011
Judgment S.N. AGGARWAL, J. ( 1. ) THIS is an intra court appeal filed by the appellant aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 3525/2008, whereby his writ petition in relation to refusal to grant arms licence by the respondents has been dismissed. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant had made an application to the licensing authority on or around 2006 for grant of an arms licence to possess pistol/revolver to him. The request of the appellant for grant of licence was. declined by the licensing authority vide order dated 21st June, 2006, aggrieved wherefrom the appellant had preferred an appeal being Appeal (Arms) No. 30/06 before the Commissioner Chambal Division, Morena, which appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 17th September, 2006 and the order of licensing authority refusing to grant arms licence to the appellant was affirmed. After the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the appellate authority, the appellant had preferred a writ petition before this court being W.P.No. 5209/06 and in that writ petition, learned Single Judgd of this court vide order dated 4th November, 2006 remanded the case to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits, as the appellant's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority earlier on the ground of limitation. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single judge of this court dated 4th November, 2006 in W.P.No. 5209/06, the appellate authority decided the appeal afresh and vide its order dated 11th July, 2007 remanded the case back to the licensing authority for fresh decision on merits of the case. Pursuant to the said remand order by the appellate authority, the licensing authority vide its order dated 30th January, 2008 (Annexure P/ 2 at page 20 of the appeal paper book) again rejected the request of the appellant for grant of arms licence to him and aggrieved from the said order of the licensing authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority being Appeal No. 21/08 (Arms), which was dismissed on merits by the appellate authority. The appellant still being not satisfied challenged the order of the licensing authority and also that of the appellate authority by filing a writ petition being W.P.No. 3525/08, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22nd October 2009 that has been impugned in the present appeal. We have heard Shri K. N. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents/State. We have also perused the record and the appeal paper book. ( 3. ) SHRI K. N. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance on certain judgments and with the aid of those judgments he has argued that the appellant could not have been denied arms licence only because of registration of criminal cases against him. The judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel for the appellant have been taken into account and shall be discussed hereinafter. At this stage we feel it suffice to mention that none of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the counsel for the appellant is of any consequence or apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case for reasons to follow hereinafter. ( 4. ) SECTIONS 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 are relevant for considering grant or refusal of arms licence. These sections read as under :- "13. Grant of licences.- (1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed. (2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time. (2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time. (2A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and after considering the report received under subsection (2), shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same; Provided that where the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station does not send his report on the application within the prescribed time, the licensing authority may, if it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting for that report. (3) The licensing authority shall grant- (a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required - (i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection : Provided that where having regard to the circumstances of any case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient for crop protection, the licensing authority may grant a licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such protection; or (ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licenced or recognised by the Central Government. (b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under section 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. 14. (b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under section 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. 14. Refusal of licences.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing authority shall refuse to grant- (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,- (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe- (1) to be 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 (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement." A plain reading of section 14(1)(b)(i)(3) would show that the licensing authority can refuse grant of arms licence to a person who applies for such licence in case if in his opinion the person concerned is unfit for a licence for any reason. Section 13(2) of the Arms Act referred above makes it obligatory upon the licensing authority to call for the report of the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station on the application made by a person for grant of arms licence and shall take the said report into consideration before granting or refusing the arms licence. ( 5. Section 13(2) of the Arms Act referred above makes it obligatory upon the licensing authority to call for the report of the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station on the application made by a person for grant of arms licence and shall take the said report into consideration before granting or refusing the arms licence. ( 5. ) THE learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) State of U.P. vs. Jaswant Singh Sarna, AIR 1968 Allahabad 383, (ii) Ganesh Chandra Bhatt vs. District Magistrate, AIR 1993 Allahabad 291, (iii) Mahendra Singh Bhadauria vs. State of M.P., 2009 (1) MPLJ 540 , (iv) Wasim Ahmad vs. State of U.P., 2010(5)ADJ 279, and (v) Pancham Singh vs. State of M.P., 1994 (2) VIBHA 135. ( 6. ) IN our opinion, none of the above judgments is applicable to the facts of the present case. IN Jaswant Singh Sarna's case (supra), the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 recognises right of a citizen of INdia to an arms licence. IN the opinion of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, it is obligatory upon the licensing authority not to refuse an arms licence arbitrarily if conditions specified in section 13 for grant of licence are specified. Division Bench has further held that a licensing authority under the Arms Act, 1959 acts in quasi-judicial and not in administrative capacity and therefore is under an obligation to give a hearing to the person concerned before passing any order either granting or refusing the arms licence. IN the present case, the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Jaswant Singh Sarna's case (supra) does not apply because upon perusal of the impugned order of the licensing authority at page 20 of the appeal paper book, we find that the licensing authority has given cogent reasons for refusal to grant arms licence in its order with which we are in complete agreement. Furthermore it may be noted on a perusal of the impugned order of the licensing authority that the hearing as required under the law was given by the licensing authority to the appellant before passing the said order and therefore it cannot be said that licence was refused to him in violation of principles of natural justice. Furthermore it may be noted on a perusal of the impugned order of the licensing authority that the hearing as required under the law was given by the licensing authority to the appellant before passing the said order and therefore it cannot be said that licence was refused to him in violation of principles of natural justice. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance on paras 75, 76 and 80 of the Single Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case (supra) and relying thereupon, he has argued that the licensing authority cannot refuse grant of arms licence unless there is a danger to public peace or safety. In our view, this Single Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case because in this case licence has not been refused to the appellant on the ground of public peace or safety. Licence has been denied to him for other cogent reasons mentioned in the impugned order of the licensing authority. ( 7. ) THE judgments in Mahendra Singh Bhadauria 's case (supra) and also in the case of Pancham Singh (supra), are the judgments both delivered by the Single Bench of this court. In both these judgments, it has been held that merely registration of a criminal case, against a person who applies for grant of arms licence, cannot be a ground for refusal of licence to him. In our view none of these judgments are applicable to the facts of the present case because in those cases the criminal cases registered against the person concerned were of petty nature whereas in the present case the criminal cases for which the appellant was tried were of serious nature as are mentioned in the impugned order of the licensing authority. THE arguments of the learned senior counsel that the appellant could not have been denied arms licence because he has been acquitted in all the criminal case registered against him, in our opinion, is of no consequence. We are of the view that acquittal of the appellant in the criminal cases does not give him a complete clean chit in those cases. We are of the view that acquittal of the appellant in the criminal cases does not give him a complete clean chit in those cases. His acquittal in the criminal cases mentioned in the impugned order of the licensing authority was by extending him benefit of doubt. THE very fact that the appellant was tried for heinous crimes in as many as three criminal cases shows his criminal propensity to commit crime and our view in this regard is fortified by finding contained in the impugned order of the licensing authority as one of the reasons for refusing him arms licence that he was made to surrender arms licence under the orders of the High Court of Rajasthan and this fact is not disputed before us by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Hence in our view the appellant cannot be permitted to derive any advantage out of the aforementioned Single Bench judgments of this court, wherein it was held that mere registration of criminal cases against the person concerned could not be a ground for refusing him an arms licence. ( 8. ) THE judgment of Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in Wasim Ahamad's case (supra), wherein it is held that a person cannot be refused arms licence because his need was not found genuine by the licensing authority, also has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, licensing authority has not refused arms licence to the appellant because his need was not found genuine. In fact what has been held by the learned Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in Wasim Ahamad's case (supra) is based upon statutory provisions contained in section 14(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 extracted herein above, wherein it has been provided that a licensing authority shall not refuse grant of arms licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Wasim Ahamad's case (supra) that it does not lie in the realm of the licensing authority to go into the arena as to whether the need of a person who applied for grant of arms licence is genuine or not. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Wasim Ahamad's case (supra) that it does not lie in the realm of the licensing authority to go into the arena as to whether the need of a person who applied for grant of arms licence is genuine or not. THE licensing authority is expected to exercise its discretion within the bounds of law, for which specific provisions are made in sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. In the present case, we find that the licensing authority has given sufficient and adequate reasons for refusing to grant arms licence to the appellant and they are broadly characterized as under :- (i) Withholding of vital information by him in the application form about three criminal cases in which he had faced trial. It may be noted that the appellant, at the time of hearing before the licensing authority, had pleaded bona fide mistake in not disclosing the criminal cases in his application form. The mistake in this regard on the part of the appellant was not found bona fide by the licensing authority and we do not find any fault in the view on this aspect taken by it. (ii) The appellant had faced trial for three criminal cases of serious nature i.e. (i) Crime No. 108/90 under section 307 IPC, (ii) Crime No. 191/90 under sections, 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC and (iii) Crime No. 208/93 under sections 147, 148, 149, 294 and 506-B IPC, Police Station Ambah. (iii) Surrender of arms licence by the appellant pursuant to the orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court. ( 9. ) UPON giving our anxious consideration to all the pros and cons of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, we hardly find any merit in this appeal calling for our interference in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.