The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Arms Act permits the deposit of arms when a license is suspended, as provided in Section 3, Section 21, and Section 17(10).

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19. 10. 2004 passed by appellate authority by which the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the District magistrate and directed the petitioner to deposit his arm. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 21. 6. 2001 by which the license of the petitioner was cancelled by the District magistrate. Against the order passed by District Magistrate canceling the arm license, petitioner filed an appeal No. 77 of 2001. The appellate authority remanded the matter to the District magistrate that fresh decision be taken on merits after calling for report from the police regarding criminal history of the petitioner. The appellate authority further directed that petitioner shall deposit his license by 30. 10. 2004.

( 3 ) THE counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that during suspension of the arm license, the arm cannot be directed to be deposited. His submission is that arm can be directed to be deposited only when license has been cancelled. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (46) ACC 248 Satish Chandra v. State of U. P. and Anr.

( 4 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel Sri N. P. Pandey refuting the submission of counsel for the petitioner contended that after suspension of the arm licence the same can be directed to be deposited by the District Magistrate and no illegality has been committed by the appellate authority in directing the petitioner to deposit the arm. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra (supra) does not lay down any such ratio and the judgment having been given on concession is not a precedent.

( 5 ) I have considered the submissions of counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) THE first submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that during suspension of arm license, arm cannot be directed to be deposited and the arm can be directed to be deposited only when the arm licence has been cancelled. For considering the above submission it is relevant to consider the scheme of the Arms Act, 1959.

( 7 ) SECTION 3 of the arms Act provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 3 subsection (1) is quoted below :" 3. (1) No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under; provided that a person may, without himself holding a licence, carry any firearm or ammunition in the presence, or under the written authority, of the holder of the licence for repair or for renewal of the licence or for use by such older. "

( 8 ) THE above provision reveals that for possession or carrying any firearm a person has to hold licence. The relevant words in the Section is "he holds in this behalf". The word "holds" denotes having the licence in present time. A person whose licence has been suspended cannot be said to have holding the licence. For example a licence has been granted to a person which could not be renewed after a particular date, can it be said that person still holds licence although it has not been renewed. The answer obviously is "no". Similarly a person whose licence has been suspended cannot be said to hold the licence. The requirement of Section 3 Sub-section (1) is that a person shall not have in his possession any fire arm unless he holds in this behalf a licence. A person whose licence has been suspended cannot have in his possession any fire arm. When a person cannot have in his possession firearm necessarily the authorities have to be conceded a jurisdiction to direct the arm to be deposited. The above scheme is f