Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 385 (MP)

Kamla Bai v. State of M. P.

2016-05-09

ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. With consent of the parties heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.8.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior and order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, District Magistrate, Shivpuri respectively. 3. By passing of the order dated .4.10.2013 (Annexure P-2), the licence to retain arms (N.P. 315-bore rifle) has been revoked on the ground mentioned in the order. In appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, the order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Magistrate, Gwalior has been affirmed. 4. The petitioner is an old lady and she has arm’s licence of N.P.315-bore rifle vide Arms licence No.131/05/III/DM/, which was granted to her by the District Magistrate, Shivpuri in the year 2005. She was having weapon in pursuance to the said licence. According to the petitioner/licencee, she has retained this arms due to her political animosity and rivalry. Because of her complaint filed against Shri K.C. Chauhan, Station House Officer, a false recommendations has been made by him to the District Magistrate, Shivpuri for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. In pursuance to the said recommendations, the arm’s licence has been revoked by the District Magistrate, Shivpuri and the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior has rejected the appeal preferred by the present petitioner against such rejection order. According to the petitioner, the orders under challenge are arbitrary, illegal and are liable to be set aside. Main thrust of the petitioner is that neither she, nor her family members have ever misused the said arm’s licence. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State vehemently opposed the contents of the petition and has drawn the indulgence of this Court over the pleadings in the return. Para 2 of the return incorporates the course of events and suggests that the husband of petitioner namely - Jagahhath Rawat is a habitual offender, against whom, at present, seven cases are registered at Police Station Sihora. Before passing the impugned order, a report was called from the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, who on 29.6.2013 has submitted a report and mentioned this fact in the report. The report further contends that the petitioner has four sons, who all are of criminal nature and background against whom also, various cases have been registered at Police Station, Sihora. Before passing the impugned order, a report was called from the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, who on 29.6.2013 has submitted a report and mentioned this fact in the report. The report further contends that the petitioner has four sons, who all are of criminal nature and background against whom also, various cases have been registered at Police Station, Sihora. It is also, submitted that the petitioner is an old lady, who cannot use or maintain the arms but the said arm’s licence would be misused by her family members (as some of them are of criminal nature). According to the respondents, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed, therefore, the impugned orders dated 20.8.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior and order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, District Magistrate, Shivpuri are just and proper and deserves to be affirmed. 6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder. Along with that he has filed the order dated 19.3.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Class I, Karera in Criminal Case No.1375/2012 and order dated 15.12.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karera in Criminal Case No.1272/2007, wherein the acquittals have been made to husband and family members of the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner reiterated her prayer for setting aside the impugned orders. In support of her submissions, petitioner further placed reliance over a judgment State of M.P. [2007(4) MPLJ 527]. 7. Heard counsel for the parties with consent and with their assistance perused the record. 8. The petitioner is an old lady and she was given arm’s licence for her personal safety. But looking to the criminal antecedent of her family members (including her husband and four sons), the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri has submitted a report dated 29.6.2013 narrating the events and their possible fall-outs. Thus, on the basis of the said report, the District Magistrate, Karera, has considered the case of the petitioner and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-2). 9. Perusal of the orders, establishes the fact that the District Magistrate, Karera has rightly passed the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) revoking arm’s licence of the petitioner. 10. 9. Perusal of the orders, establishes the fact that the District Magistrate, Karera has rightly passed the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) revoking arm’s licence of the petitioner. 10. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, gives powers in respect of variation, suspension and rejection of arm’s licence. The relevant extracts thereof is reproduced as under : 17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences. -- (1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (3) The licencing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence -- (b) 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.....” 11. Perusal of the above provisions makes it clear that sufficient discretion has been given to the authorities to revoke any licence or vary the conditions, if the authority deemed it necessary on the exigency as contemplated therein. Therefore, District Magistrate, District Shivpuri has rightly passed the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure P-2), which got affirmed in appeal by Divisional Commissioner, Gwalior vide order dated 20.8.2014 (Annexure P-1). 12. In fact, the criminal antecedents of the family members of the petitioner suggest that arm’s licence issued to the petitioner may be misused by her family members in future. The acquittal shown by the petitioner in the matter of her husband vide (Annexure P-6), is also not clean acquittal and the same is on the basis of benefit of doubt. This further substantiates the ground of possibilities of misuse of arm by family members of the petitioner in the future. 13. The acquittal shown by the petitioner in the matter of her husband vide (Annexure P-6), is also not clean acquittal and the same is on the basis of benefit of doubt. This further substantiates the ground of possibilities of misuse of arm by family members of the petitioner in the future. 13. As far as the judgment Badshah @ Taj Mohammad v. State of M.P. (supra), shown by the petitioner is considered, the fact of the said case cannot be borrowed here in the present case, because this case is in respect of the logical apprehension of the District Magistrate regarding misuse of the firearm by the family members of the petitioner in future. In the said judgment, no record about misuse of firearm was available and no threat has ever been extended by the petitioner on the strength of said weapon. Similarly no material on record was found to infer that the petitioner has caused any obstruction to the public peace and public safety. Para 15 of the said judgment considers the case in hand only on the basis of non-availability of any record to establish that the petitioner has ever misused the firearm and possession of the firearm causes threat to the security of the public peace or public safety. Here the case is different, as the husband and four sons of the petitioner are habitual offenders and under the garb of this arm’s licence, they may misuse it for breaking public peace in future. Therefore, the said case is distinguishable on facts viz-a-viz this case. 14. Even otherwise, the petitioner would face no adversity if her licence to keep arms has been cancelled. It would cause no threat to her life and property. 15. Looking to all these consideration and circumstances in mind, District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner have rightly passed the impugned orders. 16. In view of the above discussion, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.