A conviction in a criminal case may be considered in relation to the threat to public peace or safety, but cannot be the sole ground for cancelling an arms licence without a specific finding as required under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. (Oral) - By way of instant writ petition, petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 12.03.2018 passed by Commissioner of Police, Faridabad whereby arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad vide order dated 07.12.2018.

2. In brief the facts are that the petitioner is an arms licence holder of NPB 32 Bore Pistol No.RP-109648 and 12 Bore D.B.B.L Gun No.40494 under Licence No.54/FBD/JAN/01 & Renewal No.280-R/JCP-FBD/2010, which was valid till 22.01.2016. An FIR No.132 dated 06.04.2014 came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC at Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad, in which he stood convicted by the court of Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 21.08.2015 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before this High Court wherein vide order dated 08.03.2017, sentence of the petitioner has been suspended. However, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 24.08.2017 as to why his arms licence be not cancelled with immediate effect. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice but vide order dated 12.03.2018, respondent No.3 cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner solely on the basis of conviction of the petitioner under the afore-mentioned FIR and appeal preferred against the same has also been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner solely on the ground of his conviction under FIR No.132 dated 06.04.2014 is not sustainable. It is argued that in the appeal preferred against the order of cancellation of his arms licence, respondent No.3 filed a reply stating therein that arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, in view of the communication received from the Chief Minister, Haryana dated 31.08.2018 announcing immediate suspension of facilities like social pensions, scholarships and arms licences in respect of every person against whom charges are framed by the Court for a sexual crime against a woman or child. The said announcement was made on 31.08.2018 whereas the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.3 on 12.03.2018. It is further argued that an arms licence can only be suspended or revoked in terms of provisions contained under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act and the impugned orders are passed without assigning any reasons that the weapons possessed by the petitioner were used by the petitioner in commission of any offence or the petitioner by his conduct or by omission had posed any threat to the security of the public peace or public safety. In support of his arguments, he relies upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.10816 of 1998 titled as Mahender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 04.07.2011 wherein it has been held that conviction in a criminal case could be relevant if there is also an observation or a finding that on account of such conviction there is a danger of misuse of licence by the petitioner, which could pose a threat to the security of public peace or for the public safety and without a definite finding to said effect as contemplated under Section 17(3)(b), there could be no suspension or revocation of the licence. It is further argued that delay of nine months in submitting the application for renewal of the licence was caused only on account of the fact that licence was valid upto 22.01.2016 and during that period the petitioner was incarcerated as had been convicted vide judgment dated 21.08.2015 and he came out after 08.03.2017 when his sentence was suspended by this High Court in criminal appeal preferred by him.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG, Haryana who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondents and supports the i