Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. N. Mithal, J.
NARAIN SINGH PARIHAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Second Appeal 2342 Of 1974
Decided On : 02/23/1981
ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 2(C), 2(E), 2(I), 4, 5, 10, 13, 16 - ARMS RULES, 1962 - RULE 3, 5, 183 - OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, AND TRANSFER OF ARMS - VALIDITY OF LICENCE - FORFEITURE OF ARMS - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT FOR DECLARATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RULES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, holding a valid license for a non-prohibited bore pistol, purchased a pistol from Virendra Singh, who was the original owner and had a license for the same. The pistol was deposited in the Malkhana after Virendra Singh's license expired. The plaintiff applied for renewal of his license and endorsement of the purchased pistol, but the authorities refused, claiming the pistol was forfeited to the State. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and right to deal with the pistol.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the pistol was not a prohibited arm as defined under the Arms Act, 1959, as it was a semi-automatic weapon and not a fully automatic weapon. The court also held that the pistol was not automatically forfeited to the State merely because it remained in deposit for a period longer than prescribed under the rules. The court further held that Virendra Singh had validly transferred the pistol to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had a valid license for the pistol. Therefore, the retention of the pistol by the State was illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the pistol in question was a prohibited arm under the Arms Act, 1959? 2. Whether the pistol was automatically forfeited to the State due to its prolonged deposit in the Malkhana? 3. Whether Virendra Singh had validly transferred the pistol to the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff had a valid license for the pistol? 5. Whether the suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and right to deal with the pistol was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of "prohibited arms" under Section 2(i) of the Arms Act, 1959, and held that a semi-automatic pistol does not fall within the definition of prohibited arms. 2. The court interpreted Section 16 of the Arms Act, 1878, and Rule 183 of the Arms Rules, 1962, and held that the mere deposit of a weapon for a period longer than prescribed does not result in automatic forfeiture. The State must exercise its power of forfeiture by a specific order. 3. The court examined the evidence and held that Virendra Singh had validly transferred the pistol to the plaintiff through a receipt, and the plaintiff had purchased the pistol in good faith. 4. The court interpreted the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, and the Arms Rules, 1962, and held that the plaintiff had a valid license for the pistol, and the District Magistrate was competent to grant the license. 5. The court held that a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and right to deal with the pistol was maintainable, as it provided sufficient relief to the plaintiff without requiring him to seek further possession of the weapon from the State.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, decreed the suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and right to deal with the pistol, and declared the retention of the pistol in the Malkhana as illegal.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff has failed in both the courts below and has now come up in second appeal before this Court.
( 2 ) THE plaint case in brief was that licence No. 6597 for a pistol of non-prohibited bore was granted to the plaintiff on 22nd Feb. 1964 by the District Magistrate, Jhansi. On 11-9-64, the plaintiff purchased a. 25 bore pistol bearing No. 42114 from one Sri Viren-dra Singh, who was himself a licence-holder and owned the said pistol. However, the pistol had been illegally got deposited from Sri Virendra Singh under the directions of in-charge P. S. Samthor. The pistol was later on deposited in the Malkhana, Jhansi. Without revoking or cancelling the licence held by Sri Virendra Singh the pistol in question was forfeited. According to the plaintiff the direction to deposit the weapon in the Malkhana was absolutely illegal and Virendra Singh lasally continued to be its owner and was therefore, also entitled to sell the same. In 1964. the plaintiff applied for the renewal of his licence and for endorsing pistol No. 42114 on it for the years 1965-66-67 and the same was renewed for three years on 12-2-1965. After its renewal the licence was returned to the plaintiff but neither the weapon was endorsed on his licence nor the same was handed over to him in spite of repeated requests. It was alleged that the weapon in question is not one of prohibited bore and therefore, the plain- tiff had not violated the conditions of the licence. It was further alleged that even a notice of forfeiture was not given to Virendra singh before it was allegedly forfeited on 11-9-64. The plaintiff had validlv purchased the wea-pon from Virendra Sineh under a re-ceipt and had also got his licence duly renewed. However, the authorities have refused to hand over the pistol to the plaintiff which continues to be in possession of the defendant. The plaintiff was thus compelled to file the suit for declaration that he was the owner of the pistol in question and was also entitled to possess and dispose of the same and that its retention in the armoury was illegal.
( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant in which grant of licence of a non-prohibited bore to the plaintiff is admitted. It is also admitted that the licence of the plaintiff was renewed for the years 1965-66-67 but the defendant contended that the suit was bad for want of service of valid notice under Section 80, C. P. C. and the suit for a mere declaration was not maintainable. When the plaintiffs licence was renewed for the vears 1965-66-67 he was directed to purchase a weapon but Virendra Sineh neither sold the pistol in question to the plaintiff nor he had any authority to sell the same. In fact, the pistol already stood forfeited in favour of the State and, therefore, the plaintiff could not acquire any title to the same, it was further stated that although the pistol was entered in the arms licence of Virendra Singh till 1956 but thereafter the licence was never got renewed. It is also alleged that Virendra Singh had voluntarily deposited the weapon on 18-3-66 at the police station whereafter it had been forfeited in favour of the State. It was alleged that the pistol was an automatic weapon and conies within the definition of "prohibited arms" as defined in the Arms Act. The District Magistrate also had no authority to issue any licence for the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs locus standi to claim the weapon was denied and it was stated that only Virendra Singh could claim the pistol, if at all.
( 4 ) THE trial court framed as many as eight issues. On issue No. 1. regarding sale of the pistol by virendra Sineh to the plaintiff, the court came to the conclusion that no such transfer had been proved and the receipt for the same had been prepared only in order to save the pistol of virendra Singh from being forfeited. It also held that the planitiff was not entitled to purchase the weapon as the same was a prohibited arm. On issue No. 2 as to whether the
AI
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
