The licensing authority must have substantial evidence fulfilling the requirement of subjective satisfaction under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act for the suspension of an arms license; mere criminal charges against a family member are insufficient.

ORDER :

Amit Seth, J.

The instant writ petition takes exception to the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the District Magistrate District Bhind, whereby exercising powers under Section 17 (3)(b) of the ARMS ACT , 1959, the arm license of the petitioner has been suspended. The order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena is also under challenge whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of suspension of arm license has been rejected.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner herein was granted the arm license for a 12 bore gun. The son (child in conflict with law) of the petitioner was found to be arrayed as an accused in the Crime No.1/2023 registered at Police Station Nayagaon, District Bhind for the commission of offence under Sections 294 , 307, 34 of IPC and enhanced Section 302 of IPC and Sections 25 /27 of ARMS ACT , along with one co-accused Pintu, and therefore, a recommendation was forwarded by respondent No.3 for cancellation of the arm license of the petitioner.

3. The respondent No.1 on receipt of the said recommendation /report, after issuing notice to the petitioner passed an order dated 03.08.2023, whereby the arms license granted to the petitioner was suspended. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also rejected vide order dated 07.03.2024.

4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a security guard by profession, who is in need of the gun and the arm license. He further submits that the present petitioner is working at Bhopal and he was not implicated in the crime in question. The alleged crime was committed at Bhind, wherein his son has been implicated and there is no allegation of use of questioned firearm in the offence, and therefore, the arms license granted to him could not have been suspended. By placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Abdul Saleem Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (2019) 3 MPLJ 332 , and the decision by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3710/2021 decided on 27.09.2022, the counsel for petitioner submits that the requirement of Section 17 (3)(b) of recording of subjective satisfaction by the licensing authority is not fulfilled in the impugned suspension order dated 03.08.2023, in view whereof, the impugned order is unsustainable. Counsel further submits that it is well settled in law that mere registration of criminal case is not a ground sufficient for suspension of the arms license. Even otherwise, the registration of the criminal case is not against the present petitioner but his son. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been decided by an unreasoned order and on these grounds, the orders impugned in the instant writ petition deserves to be set aside and quashed and arms license deserves to be restored.

5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposes the prayer and submits that it is an admitted position of fact that the son of the petitioner has been implicated in an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The allegation against the son of the petitioner is of use of a firearm (desi katta). The co-accused in the matter, namely, Pintu who happens to be uncle (baba) of son of the petitioner has used the license 315 bore gun in the offence in question and therefore, looking to the possibility of use of the questioned firearm and disturbance of public tranquility, peace and safety, the recommendation was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police for