Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 857 (GUJ)

Ashfak Ismail Khatri v. State Of Gujarat

2022-07-11

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi has tendered affidavit-in-reply. The same is ordered to be taken on record. 2. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent-State. 3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authorities in refusing him to purchase a new weapon. The petitioner was holding 32 Bore Revolver Number C-6174M, which he purchased on 30.04.2017 from the Gujarat Banduk Bhandar, after obtaining requisite permission and license. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was travelling from Ahmedabad to Jamnagar, he lost his weapon and accordingly, he informed the police officers that the bag containing licensed revolver was missing when he released the same on reaching his home. An application dated 10.12.2018 was given by the petitioner to Vejalpur Police Station, Juhapura, Ahmedabad in this regard. It is the case of the petitioner that some gang members of Anees Ibrahim were sent to murder him, if he in case failed to give a sum of Rs.10 Crores. Accordingly, the petitioner had also registered a compliant on 25.02.2017. 4.1. On 13.12.2018, the petitioner informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar with regard to his stolen 32 Bore Revolver. It is specifically stated by him that he had visited local B Division Police Station, Jamnagar on 10.12.2018 in the evening at 8 p.m., where the officers directed him to approach and register the FIR with Juhapura, Ahmedabad Police Station on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner visited Juhapura, Ahmedabad Police Station, but the Police Inspector refused to register the FIR and directed him to approach Jamnagar Police Station. In the communication dated 13.12.2018, the petitioner has expressed his concerned with regard to his loss of revolver that the same does not reach in the wrong hands and requested to recover the same at the earliest. Ultimately, on 19.06.2020, a Janvajog Entry was registered before Panch ‘A’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar and the petitioner thereafter requested the respondent no.2 to allow him to purchase a new weapon vide application dated 28.11.2019. Ultimately, the request of the petitioner for purchase of a new weapon has been rejected by the communication dated 15.03.2021 for the reason that he had lost his earlier weapon. Ultimately, the request of the petitioner for purchase of a new weapon has been rejected by the communication dated 15.03.2021 for the reason that he had lost his earlier weapon. The petitioner again requested the authority to reconsider his application for purchase of a new weapon, however, the same has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Jamnagar reiterating the same reason of the loss of the earlier weapon. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Sikander Saiyed appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”) and has submitted that since the petitioner is holding a valid license, he is entitled to at least two firearms. It is submitted that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 was amended in the year 2019 and prior to that every person, who was holding a valid license could purchase more than two firearms i.e. three firearms. It is submitted by him that there is no provision of law, which would debar the petitioner from purchasing another firearm and hence, the impugned communication may be set aside. 6. Learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi, while objecting the present petition, has submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has lost his firearm in the year 2018, whereas a complaint in this regard was registered in the year 2020 and there is a delay of more than 11 months and 18 days. Learned AGP, while placing reliance on the affidavit, has submitted that as per Rule 10 of the Arm Rules, 2016, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to take care of his weapon and keep it securely in safe area so that it could not be stolen or accessed by someone. It is submitted that since the petitioner is found to be negligent in preserving his weapon, the petitioner cannot be given permission to purchase another weapon. Further, it is submitted that in the Janvajog Entry, in column no.6, the number of weapon 32 bore revolver has been incorrectly mentioned as C/617M, however, the petitioner was having 32 bore revolver having number as C/6174M and hence, the police authority may not be in a position to retrieve such weapon. Further, it is submitted that in the Janvajog Entry, in column no.6, the number of weapon 32 bore revolver has been incorrectly mentioned as C/617M, however, the petitioner was having 32 bore revolver having number as C/6174M and hence, the police authority may not be in a position to retrieve such weapon. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act and hence, the present petition may not be entertained. 7. This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to the lis. 8. The kernel of the issue raised in the writ petition is with regard to permission sought by the petitioner for purchasing a new weapon after he has lost his earlier weapon i.e. 32 bore revolver having number C/6174M. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is having a valid license as on today and the same has not been revoked or cancelled and it is valid upto 19.12.2025. The petitioner was in possession of the aforesaid revolver, which was purchased by him on 30.04.2017, however, during his travel from Ahmedabad to Jamnagar, he lost the same on 10.12.2018 and on the very same day, while reaching Ahmedabad, he immediately informed the Vejalpur Police Station, Juhapura Ahmedabad vide his application dated 10.12.2018 with regard to loss of his revolver. The documents on record also reveal that the petitioner has been pursuing the appropriate authority for registration of FIR. Accordingly, the same was not registered because of the jurisdiction issue. Ultimately, by the communication dated 13.12.2018, the petitioner requested the Director General of Police, Gandhinagar, Gujarat with regard to his predicament in registering FIR for the stolen revolver. 9. It appears that thereafter the Janvajog Entry was registered in this regard on 19.06.2020. Meanwhile, the petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to allow him to purchase a new weapon vide his application dated 28.11.2019, which has been rejected by the respondent authorities vide communications dated 15.03.2021 and 12.10/11.2021 for the reason that since he has earlier lost his revolver/weapon, he would not be entitled to purchase a new one. 10. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of subsections (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The same are incorporated as under:- “3. Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition.? 10. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of subsections (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The same are incorporated as under:- “3. Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition.? 2 [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person, other than a person referred to in sub-section (3), shall acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, more than three firearms: Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than three at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983 (25 of 1983), may retain with him any three of such firearms and shall deposit, within ninety days from such commencement, the remaining firearms with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 21, with a licensed dealer or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury referred to in that sub-section.” 11. A bare reading of the provisions of sub-sections (2) of Section 3 of the Act would convey that a person would be entitled to acquire or carry not more than two firearms. Thus, a person, who has a valid license of firearm is entitled to have in his possession minimum two firearms. The respondent authorities have miserably failed to point out any provision of law, which would remotely suggest that in case of loss of first firearm, a person, who is having a valid license, is not entitled to purchase a new firearm. The petitioner is at least entitled to purchase two firearms on a valid license. 12. The reasons for denial of purchase of a new firearm, which are emerging from the affidavit-in-reply, are that the petitioner was negligent in storing of his firearm as per the provisions of the Rule 10 of the Arm Rules, 2016. 13. This Court has perused the aforesaid provisions. The same only suggest with regard to taking or handling the firearm as mentioned therein so that it could not be stolen or accessed by someone other than the licensee. However, the aforesaid provisions do not in any manner suggest that in case of loss of firearm, a person having a valid license is not entitled to purchase a new firearm. However, the aforesaid provisions do not in any manner suggest that in case of loss of firearm, a person having a valid license is not entitled to purchase a new firearm. The other reason incorporated in the affidavit is that there has been delay in registering the FIR with regard to theft of his revolver. The said reason is also required to be ignored since the petitioner, on the very same day, had intimated the respondent authorities by filing an application with regard to the stolen firearm. It was only after his application, which was filed before the Director General of Police on 13.12.2018, it appears that the Janvajog Entry has been made in the year 2020. With regard to the incorrect revolver number registered in the Janvajog Entry, it appears to be a typographical error since in all the earlier application the petitioner has given the correct revolver number being C/6174M. The last contention is raised with regard to alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act. A bare perusal of Section 18 of the Act will clarify that the same pertains to the filing an appeal against the order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a license or wearing a condition of the license. The appeal filed under Section 18 of the Act only signifies the aspect with regard to refusal to grant or altering the condition of license. The provision of Section 18 of the Act is absolutely silent with regard to filing of an appeal against the order passed for refusing a person to purchase a second firearm. 14. Thus, in absence of any provision of law, which would debar the present petitioner in purchasing the fresh firearm in case of loss of the first firearm, the writ petition merits acceptance. The impugned communications dated 15.03.2021 and 12.10/11.2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to accord permission of purchase a fresh firearm to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. 15. The present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.