Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1797 (JHR)

Tarsem Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-10-22

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2019
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction upon the respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to comply the order dated 29th December, 2006 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa in M.G.L. Appeal No.24 of 2006, whereby the respondent no.2 was directed to pass a reasoned order on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to revive three arms licences of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to release the arms along with licences which were deposited by the petitioner before the concerned police station as per the direction of the respondent no.2. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case being Sidgora P.S. Case no.41 of 2000, registered under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act, in which the petitioner was convicted. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No.1494 of 2004 before this Court against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Trial Court has been suspended in appeal and presently he is on bail. In pursuance of the judgment of conviction, the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur vide memo no.3032 dated 14th November, 2004 requested the respondent no.2 for cancellation of the licences standing in the name of the petitioner, a copy of which was also forwarded to the respondent no.3-Officer-in-charge of Sidgora Police Station. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 asked the petitioner to deposit his all arms and licences. Subsequently, on 8th January, 2005, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner from the office of the respondent no.2, which was replied by him stating therein that he had no connection with the criminal case of Sidgora P.S. Case No.134 of 2004 due to which his licences were sought to be cancelled. The petitioner made representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur on 27th June, 2005 for release of his surrendered arms. The petitioner made representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur on 27th June, 2005 for release of his surrendered arms. When no action was taken on the representation filed by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.5756 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 15th December, 2005, directing the respondent no.2 to dispose of the licence cancellation proceeding within three months. Pursuant to the order dated 15th December, 2005 passed by this Court, the respondent no.2 passed the order dated 31st August, 2006, whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected and Arms Licence No.9 of 1994 of the petitioner which had been issued from the district of East Singhbhum was cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, who by way of an interim order dated 4th October, 2006 directed the respondent no.2 to release the arms and licences of the petitioner, however, the respondent no.2 did not pay any heed towards the matter. Finally, the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 29th December, 2006, directing the respondent no.2 to pass necessary order in accordance with law for revival of three arms licences and to release the seized arms of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has not followed the order of the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, who is also his superior authority. The petitioner has made repeated requests for abiding by the order of the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, however, the respondent no.2 did not pay any heed to such representation. The action of the respondent no.2 in not releasing the arms licences of the petitioner as well as his arms, which were deposited by him, is highly arbitrary and illegal. The authorities have no right to cancel the arms licences duly issued to the petitioner by the licensing authorities only on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case. Moreover, Cr. Appeal No.1494 of 2004 filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th August, 2004 passed in S.T. No.348 of 2001 is still pending before this Court. Moreover, Cr. Appeal No.1494 of 2004 filed by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12th August, 2004 passed in S.T. No.348 of 2001 is still pending before this Court. In the said appeal, the order of sentence awarded to the petitioner has been suspended and as such he is entitled to retain his licences and arms during the pendency of the said appeal. 4. Mr. J. F. Toppo, learned S.C. (L&C)-III, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondent no.2, on remand of the matter by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, has passed a detailed order on 21st January, 2012 considering all the relevant aspects. It has been observed by the respondent no.2, inter alia, that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the matter is still sub-judice before the High Court in criminal appeal and hence, at this juncture, particularly in absence of any order of the High Court, it would not be justified to release the arms by renewing the arms licences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. In pursuance of conviction of the petitioner by the Trial Court, his Arms Licence No.9 of 1994 was cancelled on the basis of the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police. The other two arms possessed by the petitioner on the basis of licences issued to him from Gurudaspur and Amritsar were also deposited by the petitioner in the concerned police station. While passing the order dated 31st August, 2006, the respondent no.2 observed that the petitioner obtained three arms licences from three districts, namely, Gurudaspur, Amritsar and East Singhbhum and he would be misusing the arms possessed by him on the basis of arms licences issued from Gurudaspur and Amritsar. The order dated 31st August, 2006 passed by the respondent no.2 was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner and the same was quashed on 29th December, 2006 with a direction to the respondent no.2 to pass an order in accordance with law on subsequent recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum and to revive all the three licences as well as to release the arms deposited by the petitioner. The respondent no.2, however, did not take any step to abide by the order of the Commissioner and only after filing of the present writ petition, the impugned order dated 21st January, 2012 was passed in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner. By the said order, the respondent no.2 again rejected the claim of the petitioner for revival of arms licences and release of the arms. 6. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has put reliance on Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, which, in fact, empowers the Court which passes an order of conviction against any holder of licence under the Arms Act and the rules made thereunder to suspend or revoke the licence. However, such power is not vested with the respondent no.2 and as such the said provision does not empower the respondent no.2 to cancel or revoke the licences of the petitioner. The respondent no.2 in the impugned order dated 21st January, 2012 has also observed that the appeal against the conviction of the petitioner is pending before this Court and as such it is not in the interest of justice to revive the arms licences and release the arms. 7. Mere conviction in a criminal case is not a ground to cancel the arms licence or to seize the arms unless there is a reasoned order by the licensing authority on the issue that possessing the arms in pursuance of conviction by the arms licence holder may endanger the peace and tranquillity of the society. Otherwise also the principle of natural justice requires that any punitive decision should be taken after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned person. The respondent no.2, while declining to revive the licences has not observed on the basis of facts available before him that the revival of the arms licences in favour of the petitioner would disturb the public peace and may put the life of other residents in danger. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 21st January, 2012 passed by the respondent no.2 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 to decide it afresh by way of reasoned order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. 9. This writ petition is disposed of.