Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 450
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
Sanjay Yadav
Jahangir Khan
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors.
W.P. No. 2865/2000
Decided On: 21.06.2010
Mere suspicion or association with a criminal cannot be the sole ground for revocation of an arms license under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Headnote:
Arms License - Revocation of Arms License - Arms Act, 1959, Section 17(3) - The judgment discusses the legality of revoking an arms license under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. It highlights the conditions under which a license can be suspended or revoked and emphasizes that mere suspicion or association with a criminal cannot be the sole ground for revocation. The judgment references key legal provisions in the Arms Act, 1959 and their interpretations, influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's arms license for a 315 bore rifle was revoked by the District Magistrate based on a report from the Superintendent of Police alleging the petitioner's association with a criminal. The petitioner challenged the revocation, arguing that it was based on surmises and conjectures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revocation of the arms license was not justified as there was no cogent material to substantiate the suspicion raised by the Superintendent of Police. Mere association with a criminal cannot be the sole ground for revocation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revocation of the arms license was justified based on the petitioner's association with a criminal, as alleged by the Superintendent of Police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that revocation of an arms license under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 can only be justified if any of the specified conditions are fulfilled. Mere suspicion or association with a criminal cannot be the sole ground for revocation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order revoking the arms license and set aside the appellate order, allowing the petitioner's petition.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.
2. The Petitioner by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality of order dated 6.7.1998 passed by District Magistrate, Bhopal, whereby, the Arms License No. 17/ 89 held by the Petitioner for 315 bore rifle has been revoked in exercise of power under Section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959.
3. The challenge is also to an order dated 23.2.2000 passed by Respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, Bhopal division, Bhopal; whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of revocation of Arms License has been dismissed.
4. Brief facts giving rise to the order of revocation are that, the Petitioner, an agriculturist and resident of village Islam Nagar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal was issued an Arms License bearing No. 17/89 to hold 315 bore rifle in 1989 which was renewed from time to time.
5. In the year 1992 the Petitioner was served with an order dated 22.4.1992, whereby, the aforesaid license was cancelled and the Petitioner was called upon to deposit the 315 bore rifle with the nearest police station. The Petitioner alleging that the order dated 22.4.1992 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing assailed the same in an appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 1959. The said appeal was, however, dismissed on 24.12.1992. The Petitioner thereafter preferred a petition before this Court against the order of revocation of license and the appellate order vide M.P. No. 1059/1993. The said Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 19.8.1994 and the order passed by appellate authority was set aside with a direction to decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
6. In pursuance to order in M.P. No. 1059/1993, the appellate authority on 15.5.1995 passed an order after hearing the Petitioner holding that, the revocation of license by the District Magistrate vide his order dated 22.4.1992 was not proper as the District Magistrate has not taken into consideration the entire factual aspect. The appellate authority by setting aside the order of revocation dated 22.4.1992 remitted the matter for reconsideration.
7. The District Magistrate in pursuance to the order passed by appellate authority on 15.5.1995 called for report from Superintendent of Police, Bhopal who vide his report dated 25.6.1996 informed that two cases against the Petitioner under Section 107/1196 Code of Criminal Procedure are pending and there are no other criminal cases registered against him. The Superintendent of Police, Bhopal further informed that the cousin of the Petitioner, i.e., Massu @ Mushir is a dreaded criminal and the Petitioner has been helping him internally. It is on the basis of aforesaid report the District Magistrate, Bhopal passed an order dated 6.7.1998 revoking the Armed License No. 17/89 of 315 bore rifle. An appeal preferred by the Petitioner against said order also suffered dismissal by order dated 23.2.2000; feeling aggrieved, whereof, the Petitioner has preferred this petition.
8. The sole ground on which the Petitioner assails the order of revocation of Arm License is that the same is based on surmises and conjectures. It is urged that there being no material evidence on record to justify that the Petitioner is involved in illegal activities and has misused the terms of license the order of revocation is erroneous in law. It is further urged that there is no evidence on record that the Petitioner ever associated himself with the said Massu @ Mushir in illegal activities.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that it is merely on suspicion that the arm license of the Petitioner has been revoked. The order, it is urged, therefore, suffers from patent error of law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by High Court of Allahabad Bench in Ram Bahadur Singh
