The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'imprisonment of not less than two years' as per Section 6(1)(b) of The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

Heard Mr. Surendra G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Shirin V. Naik, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, learned Advocate General alongwith Ms. Maria S.J. Correia, for the Respondents.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and at the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioners challenge the orders made by the Additional Secretary (Home) and the Chief Secretary, both Licencing and Appellate Authority under the provisions of The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, (the said Act) declining the Petitioners licence to operate a Private Security Agency, as contemplated by the said Act.

5. The rejection of the licence is on the sole ground that the case of the Petitioners is covered under the provisions of Section 6(1) (b) of the said Act.

6. Section 6(1)(b) reads as follows:

“6. Persons not eligible for licence.-

(1) A person shall not be considered for issue of a licence under this Act, if he has been--

(a).......................................................................

(b) convicted by a competent court for an offense, the prescribed punishment for which is imprisonment of not less than two years; or

(c).....................................................................

(d).......................................................................

(2) ….......................................................................”

[Emphasis supplied]

7. The record indicates that the Petitioners were involved in criminal case bearing Crime No. 12/2012 under Sections 325, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C, which case was compounded on 21.06.2012 and criminal case bearing Crime No. 95/2004 under Sections 341, 353 r/w with 34 of I.P.C and in respect of this case, the Petitioners were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao vide Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2008. The Petitioners were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks and two days respectively, as indicated in the operative portion of the Order.

8. In the aforesaid undisputed circumstances, the question which arises for determination is whether the Petitioners were indeed convicted by a competent court for an offence, 'the prescribed punishment for which is imprisonment of not less than two years.'

9. Section 341 of the I.P.C. reads as follows:

“341. Punishment for wrongful restraint. —

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

10. From the aforesaid it is quite clear that the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. cannot be regarded to be an offence, the prescribed punishment for which, is imprisonment of not less than two years.

11. Section 353 of the I.P.C. reads as follows:

“353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.— Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

[Emphasis supplied]

12. From the aforesaid it is clear that the offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. is one, for which, the legislature has prescribed imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.

13. Further question which arises for determination is whether the punishment for a term which may extend to two years can be regarded as punishment of imprisonment ' of not less than two years' because, this is a precise expression used under Section 6(1)(b) of the sa