High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Ravi Malimath, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ.
SUNEEL KUMAR SINGH s/o BALENDRA SINGH – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
W. A. No. 480 of 2021
Decided On : 11-05-2022
Arms Act - Licence Rejection - 1959 - 14(1)(b)(i), 14(1)(b)(ii), 13, 3 - The court discussed the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, particularly sections 14(1)(b)(i), 14(1)(b)(ii), 13, and 3, which govern the refusal of licences and the requirements for acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition. The court emphasized the discretionary powers of the licensing authority under section 13 and the mandatory refusal of licences under section 14(1)(b)(ii) for the security of public peace or safety.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's application for a pistol/revolver licence under the Arms Act, 1959 was rejected by the State Government, and the writ petition challenging the rejection was dismissed by the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the appellant's application was justified based on the absence of threat perception and the discretion of the competent authority.
Issues: The main issue was the justification for rejecting the appellant's licence application under the Arms Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the licensing authority has discretionary powers under section 13, but is mandated to refuse licences under section 14(1)(b)(ii) for the security of public peace or safety.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the intra Court appeal, upholding the rejection of the appellant's licence application.
ORDER : – This intra Court appeal takes exception to order dated 4-2-2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3760 of 2019, whereby, petition preferred by appellant-petitioner, has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that appellant applied for the licence of Pistol/Revolver under the provisions of The Arms Act, 1959 (for short the “Act of 1959”) read with The Arms Rules, 2016 (for short the “Rules of 2016”). His case was positively recommended by the Collector and Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. Thereafter, the recommendations were forwarded by the Commissioner Rewa, Division Rewa to the State Government vide letter dated 22-2-2018. The State Government vide order dated 22-9-2018 rejected the application of the appellant in exercise of powers under section 14(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1959. The appellant, therefore, approached this Court. The learned Single Judge did not find any substance in the writ petition and, therefore, dismissed the same. Hence, the appellant is in the instant intra Court appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that rejection of his application on the ground that there was no threat to the appellant from any person or group of persons, is erroneous. He placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chhotelal Pachori vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, W. A. No. 1249-2018 decided on 10-1-2019 and submits that there is no necessity to explain a threat to his life or security.
4. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the appellant. He submits that even assuming that it is not necessary for the appellant to specifically explain a threat to his life from any person or a group, still the State Government on its subjective satisfaction can always refuse for a licence of a particular Arm to the appellant.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The law relating to Arms and Ammunition is governed by the Act of 1959. From a perusal of the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1959, it is seen that the Bill was introduced before the Parliament to achieve various objects such as;
“The objects of this Bill are – (a) to exclude knives, spears, bows and arrows and the like from the definition of “arms”; (b) to classify firearms and other prohibited weapons so as to ensure – (i) that dangerous weapons of military patterns are not available to civilians, particularly the anti-social elements; (ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege; and (iii) that firearms required for training purpose and ordinary civilian use are made easily available on permits; (c) to co-ordinate the right of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country; (d) to recognize the right of the State to requisition the services of every citizen in national emergencies. The licensees and permit holders for firearms, shikaris, target shooters and rifle-men in general (in appropriate age groups) will be of great service to the country in emergencies, if the Government can properly mobilize and utilize them.”
7. The object No. (b)(ii) would show that the legislature intended to ensure that the weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege etc.
8. Section 2(c) of the Act of 1959 defines the word “Arms”. The same reads as under : –
(c) “arms” means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence, and includes firearms, sharp edged and other deadly weapons, and parts of, and machinery for manufacturing, arms, but does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural uses such as a lathi or an ordinary walking stick and weapons incapable of being used otherwi
Pratibha Chouhan and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
AI
The discretionary powers of the licensing authority under section 13 and the mandatory refusal of licences under section 14(1)(b)(ii) for the security of public peace or safety.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reasons for refusal of an arms licence must align with the grounds specified in Section 14(1) and (3) of the Arms Act, and statutory provi....
Threat perception is not a requirement for granting an arms license under the Arms Act.
Point of Law : Perverse or an illegal decision of the authority can be judicially reviewed.
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.