Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 496 (MP)

Virendra Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-05-07

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
JUDGMENT : Heard. 2.The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 5-3-2012 passed by learned SingleJudge in Writ Petition No. 590/2011. The appellant has also challenged theorders dated 29-12-2010 and 12-10-2010 passed bythe District Magistrate, Bhind and AppellateAuthority, Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena in regard to cancellation of arm licence . 3.An arm licence M.P./Bhind/G-1/221/2000-B was issuedto the appellant on 29-12-2000 .Thereafter, he purchased a 12 bore rifle on 4-9-2011 . An offence under Section 306 read with Section34 of IPC vide Crime No. 34/2008 at Police Station, Endori ,District Bhind was registered against the appellant.He was released on bail in the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, In-charge, PoliceStation, Endori , District Bhind ,vide letter dated 26-11-2009 requested the Superintendent of Police, District Bhind and the District Magistrate, Bhind for cancellation of arm licence granted to theappellant. 4.The Superintendent of Police, vide letter dated 4- 1-2010 written to theDistrict Magistrate, made a request to the authority to cancel the arm licence of the appellant, on the ground that an offenceunder Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, vide Crime No. 34/2008 wasregistered against the appellant, hence, it was not in the interest of publicto continue the arm licence in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant.The appellant replied to the show-cause notice and submitted that the criminaloffence registered against him was false and his daughter-in-law committedsuicide. There was no use of gun in the offence, neither the appellant was involved in the offence. Initially, the DistrictMagistrate suspended the arm licence of the appellantand thereafter, vide order dated 12-10-2010 , the District Magistrate cancelledthe arm licence of the appellant on the ground that acriminal case was registered against the appellant and the appellant did notdeposit the gun after suspension of arm licence . 5.Against the order of cancellation, the appellant preferred an appeal before theCommissioner, Chambal Division, Morena . He pleaded that he had deposited the gun inpursuance to the order of suspension passed by the District Magistrate and thecriminal offence registered against him under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC is not at all related to use of gun. He further pleadedthat his daughter-in-law had committed suicide and he had been residingseparately. Hence, he has falsely been implicated in the criminal case. 6.However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. He further pleadedthat his daughter-in-law had committed suicide and he had been residingseparately. Hence, he has falsely been implicated in the criminal case. 6.However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by thesaid order, the appellant preferred a petition before this Court, which wasregistered as Writ Petition No. 590/2011. The learned Single Judge, vide orderdated 5-3-2012 dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that anoffence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC has been registeredagainst the appellant and the offence is serious in nature, hence, arm licence of the appellant has rightly been cancelled. 7.We have perused the charge-sheet filed against the appellant in Crime No.34/2008 for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 ofIPC. The criminal case has been registered against five persons, i.e., Phool Singh, Surendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Ramuna and Bhogi . The allegation against the appellant and otheraccused persons is that they had not treated deceased Laxmi properly, hence, she committed suicide. There is no allegation against theappellant that he had used his gun in commission of the offence. The offencehas been registered against all the family members and the case is stillpending. Except this offence, no other criminal offence has been registeredagainst the appellant. 8.Section 17 (3) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 gives power to the Licensing Authorityto suspend or revoke an arm licence on certaingrounds. The relevant Section is as under : - "17 (3) (a). The Licensing Authority may by order inwriting suspend a licence for such period as itthinks fit or revoke a licence - ( a ) if the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the holderof the licence is prohibited by this Act or by anyother law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possessionor carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reasonunfit for a licence under this Act." 9.The Full Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Kapildeo Singh Vs. Stale of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 Patna 122, has held as under in regard to revocation orsuspension of arm licence , on account of registrationof a criminal case:- "Astrong note of caution, however, must be sounded in this context. It is not the pendency of any and every criminal case, which wouldinflexibly warrant the suspension or revocation of a licence validly granted. It is not the pendency of any and every criminal case, which wouldinflexibly warrant the suspension or revocation of a licence validly granted. A criminal case may range from a paltry traffic offence to themost horrendous capital crime. Whilst the pendency ofthe former may hardly provide an adequate basis under Section 17 (3), in thecase of the latter after notice and hearing of the explanation such action maywell become necessary. Equally the use or employment of the licensed weapon inthe alleged crime might well of a relevant and added factor for considerationin the exercise of the discretion by the Licensing Authority. There is nogainsaying that licensed weapons are not to be allowed to degenerate into crimeweapons." Onthe basis of Full Bench decision of Patna High Court,it is clear that use or employment of the licensed weapon in the alleged crime, might be a relevant factor in deciding the revocationor suspension of arm licence . 10.In present case, there is no allegation or evidence against the appellant thathe had used his gun in the commission of offence. The allegation against theappellant is that he along with other family members did not treat the deceasedproperly in the house, hence deceased committed suicide. 11.Learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Courtreported in ILR (2011) MP 2964, Ramkumar Shanna Vs. State of M.P. and others. However, the aforesaidjudgment is in regard to refusal to grant arm licence and in that case, three criminal cases were registered against the applicant. 12.In the present case, only one criminal case for the offence under Section, 306read with Section 34 of IPC has been registered against the appellant. Anotherfact which has been mentioned by the District Magistrate in the order ofrevocation of arm licence that the appellant did notdeposit the gun after suspension of arm licence , iscontrary to the fact that the appellant already pleaded that he had depositedthe gun at the police station concerned after suspension of arm licence . 13.Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, in our opinion, the revocation ofarm licence of the appellant on account ofregistration of Crime No. 34/2008. at Police Station, Endori , District Bhind , iscontrary to law. 14.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. 13.Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, in our opinion, the revocation ofarm licence of the appellant on account ofregistration of Crime No. 34/2008. at Police Station, Endori , District Bhind , iscontrary to law. 14.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The order 5-3-2012 passed by learned SingleJudge in Writ Petition No. 590/2011 and orders dated 29-12-2010 and 12-10-2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind and the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena , are hereby quashed. The gun depositedby the appellant in pursuance to the revocation of arm licence ,be returned back to him along with licence . Noorder as to costs.