Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Abdul Saleem v. State of M.P & others
Writ Petition No. 11819 of 2017 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 5.4.2019.
-- nothing on record to show peril to public peace or public safety by any act of licensee -- mere registration of criminal offence against him not sufficient reason for revocation of his licence.
Held : In view of the above discussion, there was no reason before the licensing authority to record satisfaction for revocation of the licence merely due to registration of a case at Crime No. 225/2015. Nothing is on record to show the public safety affecting public tranquility is in peril or going to be affected showing an act of petitioner affecting the public at large or community. It is pertinent to mention that the licensing authority on previous proposal vide order dated 12.8.2013 was of the opinion that revocation of the arm licence is not required, however, rejected the first request of S.P. Panna but after 3 years on 7.12.2016 merely due to registration of one criminal case, changed his opinion without any basis, however, it cannot be regarded the exercise of discretion after subjective satisfaction for security of public peace and safety. Therefore, the order passed by the licensing authority is without due application of mind and arbitrary without justifying the test enumerated under section 17(3)(b) of the Act and the broad parameters carved out hereinabove.
Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order Annexure P-2 dated 7.12.2016 passed by the licensing authority affirmed by the appellate authority vide order Annexure P-3 dated 27.6.2017 are hereby set aside.
(2) Arms Act, 1959 -- S.17 -- revocation of arms licence -- arms used in commission of offence -- cancellation of licence without affording opportunity of hearing is not justified because on acquittal or setting aside of conviction, revocation will become void. [Para 16
(3) Arms Act, 1959 -- S.17 -- suspension or revocation of arms licence -- broad parameters laid down. [Para 26
(4) Arms Act, 1959 -- S.17 -- constitution of India -- Art.14 -- revocation of arms licence -- should be done after affording opportunity to affected persons. 1961 MPLJ Note 80 and 1996 All LJ 301 relied on. [Para 26
(5) Arms Act, 1959 -- S.17 -- revocation of licence -- cases must be examined on facts of each case regarding sufficiency of material and degree of danger to security ot public peace and safety. [Para 26
(6) Practice -- revocation of arms licence -- can be done also by Court trying offence under Arms Act against licensce. 1971 SCC online P & H 206 relied on. [Parta 26
(7) Practice -- revocation of arms licence -- reasons should be recorded by authority and furnished to holder on demand unless their supply is prohibited in public interest. 1965 SCC online P & H 382 relied on. [Para 26
(8) Words and Phrases -- "Public peace" and public safety -- does not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order -- means safety of public at large and not safety of a few persons -- includes security of public or their freedom from danger -- public peace means " maintinance of public tranquility and order." AIR 1950 SC 124 and (1982)2 SCC 403 followed. 1961 MPLJ Note 80, AIR 1993 All 291, Advanced law Lexicon (5th Edition) by Shakeel Ahmed Khan and Corpus juris secundum relied on. [Para 26
(9) Arms Act, 1959 -- S.17 -- scope of power -- licence -- discretion conferred on authority to examine sufficiency of material placed before it -- ought to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously. [Para 26
¼1½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 && /kkjk 17¼3½¼[k½ && vk;q/k ykblsal dks izfrlagj.k && ykblsal/kkjh ds fdlh Hkh ÑR; }kjk yksd 'kkafr ;k yksd lqj{kk ij ladV nf'kZr djus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij dqN ugha && mlds fo#) nkafMd vijkèk dk jftLVªhdj.k ek=] ykblsal ds izfrlagj.k ds fy, i;kZIr dkj.k ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr foospuk dh n`f"V ls vijk/k Ø- 225 lu~ 2015 ij ekeys ds jftLVªhdj.k ek= ls ykblsUl ds izfrlagj.k ds fy, lekèkku vfHkfyf[kr djus ds fy, ykblsUl izkf/kdkjh ds le{k dksbZ dkj.k ugha FkkA vfHkys[k ij loZlk/kkj.k vFkok leqnk; dks izHkkfor djus okyk ;kph dk ,slk dksbZ Hkh ÑR; nf'kZr ugha gS ftlls yksd iz'kkafr izHkkfor djrs gq, yksd lqj{kk [krjs esa gS ;k izHkkfor gksus okyh gS ,slk nf'kZr gksA ;g mYys[k djuk izklafxd gS fd iwoZ izLrko ij vkns'k fnukad 12-8-2013 }kjk ykblsUl izkf/kdkjh dh ;g jk; Fkh fd vk;q/k ykblsUl dk izfrlagj.k visf{kr ugha gS] rFkkfi] mlus iqfyl v/kh{kd] iUuk dk izFke vuqjks/k ukeatwj dj fn;k Fkk ijarq 3 o"kZ i'pkr~ 7-12-2016 dks] ,d nkafMd ekeys ds jftLVªhdj.k ek= ds dkj.k] mlus fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds viuh jk; ifjofrZr dj nh] rFkkfi] bls yksd iz'kkafr rFkk lqj{kk dh lqfuf'prrk ds fy, O;fDr ijd lek/kku ds i'pkr~ foosd dk mi;ksx ugha ekuk tk ldrkA blfy,] ykblsal izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 17¼3½¼[k½ ds v/khu izxf.kr ijh{k.k rFkk ,rfLeu~iw.kZ of.kZr fd, O;kid ekunaMksa ds vuqlkj U;k;kuqer ugha gksdj lE;d~ euksfu;ksx ds fcuk rFkk euekuk gSA
rn~uqlkj] ;g ;kfpdk lQy gksrh gS rFkk ,rn~}kjk eatwj dh tkrh gSA vkns'k mikca/k ih&3 fnukad 27-6-2017 ds ek/;e ls vihy izkf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkiq"V rFkk ykblsUl izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k mikca/k ih&2 fnukad 7-12-2016 ,rn~}kjk vikLr fd, tkrs gSaA 1965 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu iatkc rFkk gfj- 82] 1971 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu iatkc rFkk gfj- 206] 1984 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu byk- 61] , vkb vkj 1993 byk- 291] ¼2007½4 ,e ih ,y ts 527] 2009¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 540] 2016 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu cacbZ 5019] 2007 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu byk- 961 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 5490 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 27-2-2017 foosfprA ¼2009½2 ,e ih ,y ts 291 izHksfnrA
¼2½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 && /kkjk 17 && vk;q/k ykblsUl dk izfrlagj.k && vk;q/k vijk/k fd, tkus esa vk;q/k dk mi;ksx && lquokbZ dk volj fn, fcuk ykblsUl dk jídj.k U;k;laxr ugha D;ksafd nks"keqfDr ij ;k nks"kflf) dh vikfLr ij izfrlagj.k 'kwU; gks tk,xkA ¼iSjk 33
¼3½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 && /kkjk 17 && ykblsUl dk fuyacu vFkok izfrlagj.k && LFkwy ekunaM vf/kdfFkrA ¼iSjk 26
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-14 && vk;q/k ykblsUl dk izfrlagj.k && izHkkfor O;fDr dks volj nsus ds i'pkr~ fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 1961 ,e ih ,y ts uksV 80 rFkk 1996 byk- ,y ts 301 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 26
¼5½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 && /kkjk 17 && ykblsUl dk izfrlagj.k && lkexzh dh i;kZIrrk rFkk yksd iz'kkafr vkSj lqj{kk dh lqfuf'prrk ij ladV dh ek=k ds lca/k esa] izR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij gh ekeyksa dh tk¡p dh tkuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 26
¼6½ izFkk && vk;q/k ykblsUl dk izfrlagj.k && ykblsUl/kkjh ds fo#) vk;qèk vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vijk/k dk fopkj.k djus okys U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1971 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu iatkc rFkk gfj- 206 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 26
¼7½ izFkk && vk;q/k ykblsUl dk izfrlagj.k && izkf/kdkjh }kjk dkj.k vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus pkfg, rFkk ek¡x ij /kkjd dks iznk; fd, tkus pkfg, tc rd fd yksdfgr esa budk iznk; izfrfl) ugha gksA 1965 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu iatkc rFkk gfj- 382 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 26
¼8½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k && ßyksd iz'kkafrÞ ßyksd lqj{kkÞ && fof/k vkSj O;oLFkk dk lkekU; fo{ksi rkRif;Zr ugha && loZlk/kkj.k dh lqj{kk rkRif;Zr gS] dqN O;fDr;ksa dh ugha && turk dh lqj{kk ;k ladV ls mudh Lora=rk lfEefyr gS && yksd iz'kakfr ls ßyksd iz'kkafr rFkk O;oLFkk dk vuqj{k.kÞ vfHkizsr gSA , vkb vkj 1950 ,l lh 124 rFkk 1982¼2½ ,l lh lh 403 vuqlfjrA 1961 ,e ih ,y ts uksV 80] , vkb vkj 1993 byk- 291] 'kdhy vgen [kku Ñr] ,Mokal ykW ysfDldu ¼5ok¡ laLdj.k½ rFkk dkWiZl T;wfjl lsadMe voyafcrA ¼iSjk 26
¼9½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e 1959 && /kkjk 17 && 'kfDr dh O;kfIr && ykblsUl izkf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ lkexzh dh i;kZIrrk ij[kus gsrq izkf/kdkjh dks iznÙk foosdkf/kdkj && U;kf;d :i ls iz;qDr dh tkuk pkfg, ,oa u fd euekus #[k ls ;k vuqfpr :i lsA ¼iSjk 26
1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order Annexure P-2 dated 7.12.2016 passed by District Magistrate Panna and the order of the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar Annexure P-3 dated 27.6.2017 directing to revoke his arm licence, inter alia contending that such an action is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind.
2. In the order passed by licensing authority, it is mentioned that recently a case is registered at Crime No. 225/2015 which is pending in the competent Court, however, revocation of the arm licence is necessary to maintain public peace and for public safety. Thus, in exercise of power under section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act) the licence bearing No.08/pratan/panna/2010 dated 3.11.2010 is revoked with direction to deposit the firearm (gun). The Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar while dismissing the appeal, has referred the facts of the case from Para 1 to 7 and in concluding para 8 in reference to the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Panna opined that the arm licence may be mis-utilized affecting security of public peace and public safety. However, dismissing the appeal said, the licence has rightly been revoked by the licensing authority, but without adverting the arguments advanced and assigning the reasons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the arm licence was granted in the year 2010. The alleged criminal cases referred from Sr. Nos. 1 to 6 in the impugned order dated 7.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) were prior to grant of arm licence, in which he is acquitted long back by the competent Court prior to grant of licence. Only the case mentioned at Sr. No.7 of the impugned order of Crime No. 225/2015 was registered in 2015 falsely implicating him. In the said case on the basis of compromise the Court acquitted the accused on 6.9.2016 prior to passing the impugned order. In the said case misuse of arm licence or use of the gun with intent to affect the public at large was not alleged. Therefore, security of public peace or public safety is not in danger. In fact merely because the complainant is a journalist, who alleged against the petitioner, however, in the facts of this case, revocation of arm licence is arbitrary and contrary to law.
4. It is urged, the licensing authority has exercised the power under section 17(3)(b) of the Act, for variation, suspension and revocation of the licence, which can be exercised, where “deems it necessary” for the “security of the public peace and public safety”. The phrase “deem it necessary” confers a discretion to be exercised only in “the security of the public peace and public safety” after subjective satisfaction. The said issue has been considered by various High Courts in Bhim Sen v. State of Punjab reported in 1965 SCCOnline P&H 382; Labh Singh v. Divisional Commissioner reported in 1971 SCCOnline P&H 206; Changga Prasad Sahu v. State of UP reported in 1984 SCCOnline All 61; Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate, Almora reported in AIR 1993 All 291; Ramesh Singh v. State of UP and others reported in 2007 SCC Online All 961; Ajay Jayawant Bhosale v. Commissioner of Police, Pune and others reported in 2016 SCCOnline Bom 5019. Looking to the provisions of law and the above precedents, in the facts of this case, nothing is available on record to show that “the public peace or public safety” is on peril, for which revocation of licence of the petitioner is necessary.
5. It is further contended that in the year 2011, Superintendent of Police, Panna requested for revocation of arm licence of the petitioner to the District Magistrate which was rejected vide order dated 12.8.2013 (signed on 10.9.2013) holding that the prosecution has failed to bring sufficient material and reasons justifying the request for revocation. While making previous recomm
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
