Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1132 (RAJ)

Major Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-14

GOVIND MATHUR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - An application is preferred for early hearing of the writ petition. 2. Looking to the narrow amplitude of the issue involved, the application is allowed and the writ petition is heard finally today itself. 3. The facts of the case are, that a licence for 12 bore gun was issued to the petitioner by the authority competent in the year 1966. The licence was renewed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arms Act. However, the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh vide order dated 28.07.2008 denied for further renewal and also cancelled the licence on the count that the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 430 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 months' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 4000/-. To challenge the order aforesaid, an appeal was preferred and that came to be disposed by the judgment dated 02.03.2009. The appellate authority accepted the appeal in part with specific finding that no adequate reason exists to cancel the licence. The appellate authority, accordingly, directed the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh, to consider the issue afresh. 4. In pursuance to the directions given, the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh reconsidered the issue and by an order dated 26.04.2010 cancelled the arms licence existing in favour of the petitioner since the year 1966. The District Magistrate while cancelling the licence observed that the licencee was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 430 IPC, therefore, the possibility of misuse of the weapon cannot be denied. To challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh dated 26.10.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal and that also came to be dismissed under an order dated 08.11.2010. To challenge the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh, this petition for writ is preferred. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conviction of the petitioner is for an offence punishable under Section 430 IPC and that is having no relation with the use or misuse of the fire-arm. It is further submitted that that refusal for grant of licence could have been made only for the reasons referred under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, but no such eventuality exists in the instant matter. 6. It is further submitted that that refusal for grant of licence could have been made only for the reasons referred under Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, but no such eventuality exists in the instant matter. 6. Per contra, as per learned counsel for the respondents, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 430 IPC is sufficient to indicate that he is a person of criminal tendencies and therefore, the apprehension of the District Magistrate about causing injury to public peace is well founded and that does not require any interference of this court while exercising authority under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted by a competent court for an offence punishable under Section 430 IPC, i.e. the offence of mischief by causing diminution of supply of water for agriculture purposes etc. The offence under Section 430 IPC in no manner reflects any tendency of the petitioner for causing injury to public peace or of committing any other crime that may be sufficient to deny licence for a fire-arm. For denying licence of a fire-arm, the licencing authority is supposed to arrive at a conclusion that maintenance of public peace or public safety demands for non-arming of the licencee or the person demanding licence. 9. In the case in hand, the petitioner was having licence of fire-arm since 1966 and he never misused that. The case against him was also relating to an offence described under Section 430 IPC, which has nothing to do with fire-arm. It is also relevant to mention that breakage of water course by various means including mischief is usual in the area, where irrigation is based on canal system. The offence, as such, is of quite a minor nature and that is not at all sufficient to conclude misuse of fire arm or even for causing injury to the peace of the area at large. The petitioner was having arms licence since 1966 and he never misused the same, is also a factor that establishes that the apprehension made is not well founded to refuse the licence, which was in currency since 1966. I am of the considered opinion that the licencing authority as well as the appellate authority erred while cancelling licence of the petitioner for fire-arm. 10. I am of the considered opinion that the licencing authority as well as the appellate authority erred while cancelling licence of the petitioner for fire-arm. 10. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondent District Magistrate, Hanumangarh is directed to award fire-arm licence to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month from today.Petition Allowed. *******