Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)
S.B. SINHA, J.
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. & others – Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar & others – Respondents
CWJC No. 915 of 1987 (R)
Decided on: 25.9.1991
ARMS ACT - SECTION 3(2) - CONSTITUTIONALITY - APPLICABILITY TO JURISTIC PERSONS - EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - QUASHING - ARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1983 - REPEALING AND AMENDING ACT, 1988 - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - SECTION 6(E).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a company, challenged the seizure of its firearms and the prosecution initiated against it for violating Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, 1959, as amended by the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983. The petitioner contended that Section 3(2) was unconstitutional and inapplicable to juristic persons, and that the exemption notification issued by the Central Government absolved it from criminal liability. The respondents argued that Section 3(2) was constitutional and applied to juristic persons, and that the prosecution could continue despite the exemption notification due to Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, as amended, is not unconstitutional and applies to both natural and juristic persons. The word "person" in the Act includes companies and associations, as defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 2. The exemption notification issued by the Central Government under Section 41 of the Arms Act has retrospective effect and exempts the petitioner from the operation of Section 3(2). The notification is remedial in nature and should be interpreted liberally. 3. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner for violating Section 3(2) of the Arms Act are quashed as they amount to an abuse of process considering the exemption notification issued by the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, as amended, is unconstitutional and/or applies only to natural persons? 2. Whether the petitioner is protected under Section 4 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1988, in view of Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897? 3. Whether the exemption notification dated 8.12.1987 absolves the petitioner from its criminal liabilities? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ application?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, as amended, is not unconstitutional and applies to both natural and juristic persons. The word "person" in the Act includes companies and associations, as defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 2. The exemption notification issued by the Central Government under Section 41 of the Arms Act has retrospective effect and exempts the petitioner from the operation of Section 3(2). The notification is remedial in nature and should be interpreted liberally. 3. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner for violating Section 3(2) of the Arms Act are quashed as they amount to an abuse of process considering the exemption notification issued by the Central Government.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. C/2 625/87 and the seizure of two firearms are quashed.
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the seizure dated 18.6.1987 and the prosecution lauched as against the petitioners pursuant thereto being Complaint No. C-2 625/87 and for a further declaration that sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 3 of the Arms Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional or in the alternative declare that Section 3 (2) thereof is restricted to natural person alone and thus have no application in respect of a juristic person.
2. The petitioner have filed an application for amendment of the writ petition and therein, inter alia, it has been prayed that the orders which are contained in Annexure-6, 6/A, 6/B, 6/C, 6/D, 6/E and Annexure 7 and 7/A as also Annexure-8 and 8/A be also quashed, by issuance of an appropriate writ.
3. The fact of the matter may be noticed in brief.
4. The petitioner no. 1 is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and the Divisional Manager of Security Services respectively.
5. The petitioner-company allegedly owns and possesses about 150 fire arms for the purpose of their use by about 2400 of its security personnel.
6. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 has various vital installations which come within the purview of the definition of protected place under the Bihar Protected Places Act, 1979 as would appear from Annexure 1 and 2 to the writ application. The petitioner no. 1 has also been declared to be public utility service.
According to the petitioners, 2400 personnel have been deployed for the purposes of enforcing security of the properties of the Company including those of collieries and other mines belonging to it. For the said purpose, petitioner-company has taken out licences for about 150 fire arms details whereof are contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioners have also given a list of the works and vital installations which are required to be guarded by the security personnel of petitioner no. 1 which is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application.
7. On or about 22.3.1987, 4.5.1987 and 6.5.1987 the petitioners received notices from the respondent no. 3 calling upon them to deposit all arms. The said notices are contained in Annexure 6 to 6/E, Annexure 7, 7/A and Annexure 8 and 8/A to the writ application.
8. By letter dated 18.5.1987, petitioner no. 1 requested the respondents not to pursue the matter as the same would result in security problem of the petitioner company and its various vital important installations would be exposed to danger. It was further contended that petitioner would approach the Central Government for exemption from the operation of the said Act in terms of the provisions of Section 41 of the side Act.
9. On or about 27.5.1987, the petitioner filed an application under Section 41 of the Arms Act before the Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Steel and Mines and Ministry of Internal security, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application.
The petitioners by another letter dated 22.5.1987 addressed to respondent no. 3 brought to its notice that an application for exemption had already been filed before the Central Government and the receipt of the said letter had already been acknowledged.
10. Respondent no 3, however, by a letter dated 9.6.1987 asked the petitioner-company to send its representative to attend his office for a meeting on 16.6.1987 at 10 a.m. Petitioner no. 3 went to attend the said meeting, but respondent no. 3 was not present and the same was conducted by the District Magistrate in-charge, Arms, Jamshedpur.
11. On 18.6.1987, however, respondent no. 5 seized two of the guns of petitioner no. 1 being S.B. Barrel Gun Nos. 69216 and 69141 held under licence no. 4 of Bistupur Police Station. The petitioner, t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
