Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 659 (RAJ)

Shiv Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-02

GOVIND MATHUR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - To question correctness of the order dated 8.2.2010, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, exercising powers under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1959"), this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition for writ are that the petitioner was having an arms licence for 30 bore pistol and 12 bore gun since May, 1985. The term of licence was extended by the competent authorities time to time and before expiry of the term on 7.12.2008 the petitioner submitted a renewal application to the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sriganganagar. The Collector after receiving a factual report about lodging of a criminal case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code, called upon the petitioner to explain as to why the arms licence be not suspended due to pendency of the case aforesaid. The petitioner personally appeared before the Collector to explain that he was not facing any case causing any injury to public safety and public peace, therefore, renewal application deserves to be accepted. The petitioner also mentioned that the case lodged against him is an out come of family dispute and i.e. not at all concerned with the arms licence in question. The Collector, Sriganganagar vide order dated 15.7.2009 did not choose to renew the licence, thus, an appeal as per Section 18 of the Act of 1959 was preferred. The appeal came to be rejected by the order impugned, hence this petition for writ. 3. The argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that as per Section 17 of the Act of 1959, the licensing authority may suspend a licence for a definite period to secure public peace or public safety, but in the case in hand there was no endanger to public safety or public peace, thus, non renewal of licence is bad. 4. While opposing the argument advanced, it is submitted by Shri Sandeep Bhandawat, counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner is facing a criminal case and that may result to some endanger to public peace and public safety in future, therefore, the competent authority did not choose to renew the licence. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. 4. While opposing the argument advanced, it is submitted by Shri Sandeep Bhandawat, counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner is facing a criminal case and that may result to some endanger to public peace and public safety in future, therefore, the competent authority did not choose to renew the licence. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. As per sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. While doing so the licensing authority is required to furnish to the holder of licence on demand a brief statement of the reasons unless i.e. not in public interest to furnish such statement. 7. In the case in hand the only reason given by the respondents is an apprehension of injury to public peace or for public safety due to a criminal case pending against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code. The orders impugned in no manner disclose as to how the case aforesaid creates any apprehension for causing injury to the public safety or public peace. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Khem Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2005(2) Cr.L.R. (raj.) 907 , while examining scope of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act of 1959, held as under:- "5. From the reading of the provision it is manifest that the licensing authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public piece or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the licence. A licence can be revoked under section 17(3)(b) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the licence. A licence can be revoked under section 17(3)(b) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed." 9. In the instant matter too no material is available on record to arrive at the conclusion that pendency of a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code may cause injury to public peace or public safety and to secure the same revocation of licence by not renewing the same was necessary. Mere pendency of a criminal case against a person is not sufficient to revoke arm licence but the requirement is to have sufficient satisfaction of licensing authority that suspension or revocation of licence is necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of such satisfaction if an arm licence is suspended or revoked while exercising powers under sub-section(3) of Section 17 of the Act of 1959 shall be illegal. As already stated, the licensing authority under the order dated 15.7.2009 has not given any reason to satisfy himself that non renewal of the arm licence of the petitioner was necessary to secure public peace or public safety, therefore, the same is illegal. The appellate authority also failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. 10. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds, hence allowed. The orders impugned dated 15.7.2009 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sriganganagar and the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner are declared illegal and, therefore, quashed. The licensing authority is directed to reconsider case of the petitioner for renewal of the arm licence afresh in accordance with law as far as possible on or before 01.05.2013.Petition Allowed. *******