HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ASHOK SOLANKI – Appellant
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 1666/2024
Arms Act - Suspension of Arms License - Section 18
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent no. 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the order-cum-show cause notice dated 27.10.2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, suspending the Arms license of the petitioner with immediate effect.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent no. 1 clearly erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 18 of the Arms Act, on an incorrect presumption that it is only the final order which can be challenged in an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act. The court observed that an appeal against the order of suspension is also maintainable under Section 18 of the Arms Act.
Issues: Whether an appeal against the order of suspension of arms license is maintainable under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959?
Ratio Decidendi: Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority suspending or revoking a license may prefer an appeal against that order to the appellate authority. The court held that even an order of suspension of arms license is an appealable order under Section 18 of the Arms Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal of the petitioner before the respondent no. 1, directing the respondent no. 1 to expedite the adjudication of the appeal in accordance with law.
ORDER
% 24.05.2024 CRL.M.A. 16221/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 1666/2024 & CRL.M.A. 16220/2024
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the order dated 28.02.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the respondent no.1 in Case No.90/2023 titled as Shri Ashok Solanki v. Joint Commissioner of Police, whereby the learned respondent no. 1 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short, ‘Arms Act’).
3. The above appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order-cum-show cause notice dated 27.10.2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Licensing Unit, Police Station: Defence Colony, New Delhi, suspending the Arms license of the petitioner with immediate effect, while asking him to show-cause why the same be not cancelled. The petitioner was also directed to deposit the licensed weapon to the nearest police station.
4. The appeal has been dismissed by the respondent no. 1, observing as under:
5. Issue notice.
6. Notice is accepted by Mr.Amol Sinha, the learned ASC (Criminal).
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.1 has clearly erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 18 of the Arms Act, on an incorrect presumption that it is only the final order which can be challenged in an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act. He submits an appeal against the order of suspension is also maintainable.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in spite of the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner directing the petitioner to deposit the licensed weapon with the nearest police station, the petitioner has failed to deposit the weapon. He, however, fairly admits that the appeal against the order of the suspension would be maintainable in terms of Section 18 of the Arms Act.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that the petitioner tried to surrender the weapon, however, surrender was not accepted by the authority stating that the license of the weapon has expired, hence the weapon cannot be deposited.
10. Be that as it may, it is directed that the petitioner shall surrender the weapon in question to the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station: Vijay Vihar, on 27.05.2024. The SHO of the concerned Police Station is directed to accept the surrender of the weapon, if made by the petitioner.
11. Coming back to the merits of the present petition, Section 18 of the Arms Act reads as under:
(2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor:
(3) The period prescribed for an appeal shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (
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.