IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
CWJC No. 108 of 2024
(8.10.2024)
Sunil Kumar Sinha ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Arms Rules, 2016 – Rule 17 – Cancellation of Arms License – Petitioner had applied for transfer of his arms license from Supaul to Patna, by filing an application, before the District Magistrate, in the year 2022, since his work/business at Supaul had been discontinued on account of Covid-19 pandemic – Verification report was called for by the District Magistrate having written to the District Arms Magistrate granting no objection (NOC) to renewal of the arms license of the petitioner however, said 'NOC' was recalled on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited the renewal fees, inasmuch as his arms license had expired and further on account of the petitioner having been made an accused in one Sachiwalya Patna case – Address of the petitioner and the factum regarding him carrying business at Supaul has already stood verified twice, hence the aforesaid charges levelled against the petitioner has got no substance, thus, Issue No. 1 and No. 2 are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and it is held that the same are not valid on legal grounds, so as to warrant cancellation of the Arms license of the petitioner – As far as Issue No. 3, neither chargesheet has been filed by the police nor cognizance has been taken by the learned Trial Court, hence this Court finds that the same would not be a disqualification for the purposes of holding an Arms license – Issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and it is held that mere pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, against the petitioner, would not entail cancellation of the Arms license of the petitioner – Regarding non-payment of the prescribed fees for renewal of arms licenses no occasion had arisen for filing the prescribed fees for renewable of the license, nonetheless, this Court finds that the petitioner is ready to deposit the prescribed fees for renewal of his Arms license – Thus, Issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents – Rule 17 of the Arms Rules is not attracted in the present case, inasmuch as the arms license, granted to the petitioner, is valid for the entire State of Bihar and not limited to any particular district – Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016, has not been violated by the petitioner – Issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the petitioner – Arms license, already granted, can be cancelled only if the licensee contravenes any terms and conditions of the grant of arms license however, in the present case neither the impugned order nor the appellate order mentions about the petitioner having contravened any of the terms and conditions of the grant of Arms license – Impugned orders quashed – Writ petition allowed. (Paras 14 & 17 to 21)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.06.2023, passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul, whereby and whereunder the arms license of the petitioner, bearing Arms License No.402 of 2019 has been cancelled and the petitioner has been asked to deposit his arms with the police station at Supaul. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 29.11.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa in Arms Appeal Case No.88 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was granted arms licenses, bearing Arms License No.111 of 2003, Arms License No.145 of 2003 and Arms License No.146 of 2003 (one for Revolver, one for Rifle and one for Double Barrel Gun), by the District Magistrate, Supaul, in the year 2003 and therein the permanent address of the petitioner was shown as Flat No.105, Keshav Place, Shashtri Nagar, Baily Road, Patna and the current address was mentioned as C/o. Hemkant Jha, Ward No. 26, P.O and District- Supaul. The petitioner had got his Arms licenses renewed from time to time by paying the requisite fees and fulfilling all the requisite conditions, as provided under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016. However, during the interregnum period, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner bearing Sachiwalaya P.S. Case No.75 of 2009, dated 16.06.2009, resulting in cancellation of the arms licenses of the petitioner on 22.09.2009, however, since the petitioner was acquitted in the said case, by a judgment dated 17.10.2017, the District Magistrate, Supaul by an order dated 28.01.2019, had again renewed the arms license of the petitioner, after due verification was conducted by the police officials regarding the residence of the petitioner situated at Supaul and work/ business being carried out by him there. The petitioner had subsequently, in the year 2022, filed an application for transfer of arms licenses from District-Supaul to Patna district, before the District Magistrate, Patna, along with the requisite documents but instead of the license of the petitioner being transferred from Supaul to Patna, the petitioner was surprised to receive a show-cause dated 13.04.2023, issued by the District Magistrate, Supaul, wherein the following charges were levelled and the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation to the same:—
i. Rent agreement or other documentary evidence has not been provided while obtaining the arms license in the District - Supaul.
ii. Evidence relating to work/business done by the petitioner in the district of Supaul has not been made available.
iii. Explanation is required to be furnished with regard to Sachiwalaya Patna P.S. Case No. 13 of 2023 dt. 16.02.2023.
iv. Even after expiry of the validity of Arms Licenses, the prescribed fee for renewal of the Arms Licenses and application forms have not been submitted.
v. According to Rule 17 and Rule 21 of the Arms Rule, 2016 if a person who holds a license in Form III, changes his place of residence, permanently, or temporarily for a period of more than six months, and carries with him the arms covered by the license, to a place falling, other than within the jurisdiction of the existing licensing authority indicated in the license, he shall, immediately before the expiry of a period of six months, send intimation about such change to the licensing authority of the place of his new residence and shall on demand, forthwith produce the license and the arm or arms to the new licensing authority by applying in Form B-1, indicating there in the particulars of his new residence.
3. The petitioner had then submitted his reply on 12.05.2023, to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 13.04.2023, in the following terms:—
i. Charge No.1:- (Regarding non-submission of Rent agreement/ other documentary evidence, while obtaining arms license at Supaul):—
The issue w
Raj Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar
Authorities must adhere to the Arms Act by providing compelling evidence before cancelling or denying renewal of an arms license, and mere involvement in a criminal case is insufficient to justify su....
Mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify cancellation of an arms license under the Arms Act; a substantial threat to public safety must be demonstrated for revocation.
Renewal of an arms licence can be denied based on public safety concerns and the applicant's criminal conviction, emphasizing the need for timely applications.
Mere involvement in a criminal case does not justify cancellation of a firearm license under the Arms Act; evidence of the license holder's misuse is required.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.