Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 458 (MP)

Satendra Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025-08-07

AMIT SETH

body2025
ORDER : Amit Seth, J. The instant writ petition takes exception to the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the District Magistrate District Bhind, whereby exercising powers under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, the arm license of the petitioner has been suspended. The order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena is also under challenge whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of suspension of arm license has been rejected. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner herein was granted the arm license for a 12 bore gun. The son (child in conflict with law) of the petitioner was found to be arrayed as an accused in the Crime No.1/2023 registered at Police Station Nayagaon, District Bhind for the commission of offence under Sections 294, 307, 34 of IPC and enhanced Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, along with one co-accused Pintu, and therefore, a recommendation was forwarded by respondent No.3 for cancellation of the arm license of the petitioner. 3. The respondent No.1 on receipt of the said recommendation /report, after issuing notice to the petitioner passed an order dated 03.08.2023, whereby the arms license granted to the petitioner was suspended. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also rejected vide order dated 07.03.2024. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a security guard by profession, who is in need of the gun and the arm license. He further submits that the present petitioner is working at Bhopal and he was not implicated in the crime in question. The alleged crime was committed at Bhind, wherein his son has been implicated and there is no allegation of use of questioned firearm in the offence, and therefore, the arms license granted to him could not have been suspended. By placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Abdul Saleem Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (2019) 3 MPLJ 332 , and the decision by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3710/2021 decided on 27.09.2022, the counsel for petitioner submits that the requirement of Section 17(3)(b) of recording of subjective satisfaction by the licensing authority is not fulfilled in the impugned suspension order dated 03.08.2023, in view whereof, the impugned order is unsustainable. (2019) 3 MPLJ 332 , and the decision by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3710/2021 decided on 27.09.2022, the counsel for petitioner submits that the requirement of Section 17(3)(b) of recording of subjective satisfaction by the licensing authority is not fulfilled in the impugned suspension order dated 03.08.2023, in view whereof, the impugned order is unsustainable. Counsel further submits that it is well settled in law that mere registration of criminal case is not a ground sufficient for suspension of the arms license. Even otherwise, the registration of the criminal case is not against the present petitioner but his son. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been decided by an unreasoned order and on these grounds, the orders impugned in the instant writ petition deserves to be set aside and quashed and arms license deserves to be restored. 5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposes the prayer and submits that it is an admitted position of fact that the son of the petitioner has been implicated in an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The allegation against the son of the petitioner is of use of a firearm (desi katta). The co-accused in the matter, namely, Pintu who happens to be uncle (baba) of son of the petitioner has used the license 315 bore gun in the offence in question and therefore, looking to the possibility of use of the questioned firearm and disturbance of public tranquility, peace and safety, the recommendation was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police for cancellation of the arms license. The licensing authority after following the process of law has only suspended the arms license and the reasons of suspension /subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority is duly recorded in the order impugned. Since no infirmity is there in the impugned order dated 03.08.2023, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 7 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Since no infirmity is there in the impugned order dated 03.08.2023, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 7 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. The issue arising for consideration before this Court is as to whether, the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 suspending the arms license of the petitioner fulfills the requirement of subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority as laid down under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and as to whether, the registration of a criminal case against the son of the petitioner can be said to be a ground enough for suspension of the arms license of the petitioner. 9. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads 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 been 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. (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 licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence- (a)if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (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 (c)if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or (d)if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (e)if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence. (4)The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof. (5)Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. (6)The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority. (7)A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. (7)A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. (8)An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the HighCourt when exercising its powers of revision. (9)The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof. (10)On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation. 10. The issue governing the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority and the phrase "public peace and public safety" has been considered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Saleem Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (2019) 3 MPLJ 332 , and this Court in the case of Abdul Saleem (Supra) has held as under:- 9. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the licensing authority may suspend the licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke it, if it is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by the Act or by any other law for the time being in force to acquire and having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit to hold a licence. As per sub- section (b), the licensing authority may suspend or revoke the licence if “it deems necessary” for “the security of the public peace or for public safety”. The licence may also be suspended or revoked if it was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information or in contravention of any of the conditions of the licence. The licence may also be suspended or revoked if it was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information or in contravention of any of the conditions of the licence. In addition, if the licensing authority wants to vary the condition, to which notice has been issued, if not complied, it can suspend or revoke the licence under sub-section (1) of the Section 17 of the Act. While passing the order of suspension or revocation, the authority shall record a reason and furnish it to the holder on demand by a brief statement unless in his/her opinion it will not be in the public interest. As per sub-section (6), the authority, to whom, the licensing authority is subordinate may also have power to suspend or revoke the licence similar to the licensing authority. The Court trying the offence, if convicted the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the Rules, may also suspend or revoke the licence but in case if the conviction is set aside in appeal, the suspension or revocation shall become void. The power of suspension or revocation has also been conferred to the appellate Court or the High Court akin to sub-section (7) of Section 17 of the Act. 10. Thus, for the purpose of the case at hand and on reading the aforesaid, while exercising the power under Section 17(3) (b) of the Act, the licensing authority must record its satisfaction to the effect(9) that by an act of licensee “the security of the public peace or public safety” is on peril or going to be affected, therefore, revocation of licence is necessary. 11. The phrase “Public Peace and Public Safety” is defined in Advance Law Lexicon 5th Edition by Shakeel Ahmed Khan by which it do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order, it is said that the public safety means safety of public at large and not safety of few persons only. The words “security of public peace” have also been defined in the Advanced Law Lexicon to mean “maintenance of public tranquility and order”. It is in reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunderlal Bhardwaj v. State reported in 1961 MPLJ Note 80. 12. The words “security of public peace” have also been defined in the Advanced Law Lexicon to mean “maintenance of public tranquility and order”. It is in reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunderlal Bhardwaj v. State reported in 1961 MPLJ Note 80. 12. The word “public” is having some significance to the above said phrase as referred in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act relatable to peace and safety. As per Corpus Juris Secundum, the word “public” is defined as meaning the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state; the general body of mankind, or of a nation, state, or community; everybody; the people; the body of the people at large; the community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county. “Public” is also defined or employed as meaning the inhabitants of a particular place; all the inhabitants of a particular place; the people the neighborhood; a particular body or section of the people; often, specifically, a clientele. The word “public”, however, does not mean everybody all the time; it does not mean all of the people in the state, or in any county or town. It does not mean all the people, or most of the people, or very many of the people of a place, but so many of them as contradistinguishes them from a few. It designates individuals in general without restriction or selection. “Public” also means of, or relating to, the government, and it may be defined as meaning owned by the public, that is, by the government or some of its sub divisions, as a public building, public courthouse, etc. “Public” is also the term used in designating the legal character of various acts, rights, occupations, etc. that affect or belong to the collective body of a state or community. “Public” is also defined as meaning shared in or to be shared or participated in or enjoyed by the people at large; open to all; common to all or many; pen to common or general use; general; open for general or common use or entertainment, as a public highway or road, a public house; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community. Thus, affecting the security of public peace and safety, it should not affect a few but the inhabitants of a particular place because it is a synonymous of People distinguished from private. 11. The issue as to whether, the registration of the criminal case without there being any finding as regards the involvement of the licensed arm in the said criminal case can be a ground sufficient for suspension/ revocation of the arms license has also been considered by this Court in the case of Abdul Saleem (Supra), and it has been held as under :- 25. This Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Bhadauria v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2009(1) MPLJ 540 considered the issue regarding suspension of the arm licence on account of seizure of 30 rounds (live cartridges) from the possession of the petitioner and registration of criminal case under the Act. The Court was of the opinion that the authority was not justified to suspend the arm licence merely due to pendency of the criminal case. 26. In the context of the statutory provision of the Act and the interpretation made by the aforementioned judgments, the parameters which can be broadly carved out for suspension or revocation of the arm licence, are as under:- (i) Power of suspension or revocation of the licence are with the authorities, when “it deems necessary”, after “subjective satisfaction” for “the security of public peace and public safety”. (ii) Public Peace would mean the “maintenance of public tranquility and order” and the public safety includes security of public or their freedom from danger, it does not mean law and order or affect the individual. (iii) The authority may exercise the power of suspension or revocation with due care and caution even in pending or disposed criminal cases on proof of use or misuse or threat given by use of the said weapon. (iv) In the order of suspension and revocation, the reasons ought to be recorded by the authority and furnish it to the holder on demand unless its supply is prohibited in public interest. (v) The power of licensing authority is under the supervisory control of the higher authority as per Section 17(6) of the Act and Rule 5(2) of the Arms Rules. (v) The power of licensing authority is under the supervisory control of the higher authority as per Section 17(6) of the Act and Rule 5(2) of the Arms Rules. (vi) The Court trying the offence under the Arms Act against the licensee can also suspend or revoke the licence including the appellate Court and the High Court. (vii) The cases must be examined on the facts of each case regarding sufficiency of the material and degree of danger to the security of public peace and safety. (viii) The action for revocation of the licence ought to be taken affording an opportunity to the affected persons. The aforementioned are the broad parameters which may be looked into by the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority while passing the order of suspension or revocation of the arm licence. It is made clear here that the said parameters are illustrative but not exhaustive. The authority while exercising the power under Section 17 of the Arms Act is having discretion conferred by the statute to examine sufficiency of the material placed before it but the said discretion ought to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously. 12. Admittedly, in the case in hand, there is no allegation of the licensed arm of the petitioner being used in the crime in question even the present petitioner is not an accused in the said crime. The order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 District Magistrate/Collector, District Bhind, though states that he is satisfied from the report received from the office of Superintendent of Police and he does not deem it appropriate in the public interest that the fire arm remains with the petitioner. However, the said finding cannot be said to be fulfilling the criteria of "subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned" as is required under law as there is no material on record in support thereof. The orders impugned in the instant writ petition when tested on the anvil of the law laid down in the case of Abdul Saleem (Supra), cannot be given the stamp of approval and therefore, the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by licensing authority and the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the appellate authority are hereby set aside. The orders impugned in the instant writ petition when tested on the anvil of the law laid down in the case of Abdul Saleem (Supra), cannot be given the stamp of approval and therefore, the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by licensing authority and the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the appellate authority are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 District Magistrate/Collector, District Bhind to pass an order afresh as regards the arms license of the petitioner, keeping in view the preposition of law laid down in the case of Abdul Saleem (Supra). The exercise be completed within a period of 90 days. 13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.