Avdesh Sharma vs State of MP

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard on IA 5230/13 an application for urgent hearing of the petition. Looking to the facts of the case, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6/1/2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind in Case No. 62/2005 (new No. 5/2006) (Annexure P/2) cancelling the arms license of the petitioner, and the order dated 9/3/12011 passed by the appellate authority, i.e. Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena (Annexure P/2) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The arms license of the petitioner was cancelled on account of registration of a criminal case at Crime No. 19/05 for the offences punishable under sections 147 ,148 ,149 ,336 ,294 and 506-B IPC at PS Baraso District Bhind. Petitioner submits that he has been acquitted in the aforesaid case vide judgment dated 16th July, 2007 passed by the Court of Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract) Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 224/2005. Copy of the judgment of the judgment delivered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge is annexed as Annexure P/7 along with the writ petition.

Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act 1959 prescribes power of the licensing authority in regard to cancellation of license. u/s 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act 1959, licensing authority can suspend/cancel the license. The relevant Section is as under:-

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the license; or

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others, has considered the fact of registration of criminal case in regard to suspension of arms license and has held as under:-

The Full Bench of Patan High Court in the case of Kapildeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , has held as under in regard to revocation or suspension of arm license, on account of registration of a criminal case:-

A strong note of caution, however, must be sounded in this context. It is not the pendency of any and every criminal case, which would inflexibly warrant the suspension or revocation of a license validly granted. A criminal case may range from a paltry traffic offence to the most horrendous capital crime. Whilst the pendency of the former may hardly provide an adequate basis u/s 17 (3), in the case of the latter after notice and hearing of the explanation such action may well become necessary. Equally the use or employment of the licensed weapon in the alleged crime might well of a relevant and added factor for consideration in the exercise of the discretion by the Licensing Authority. There is no gainsaying that licensed weapons are not to be allowed to degenerate into crime weapons.

On the basis of Full Bench decision of Patna High Court, it is clear that use or employment of the licensed weapon in the alleged crime, might be a relevant factor in deciding the revocation or suspension of arm license.

Looking to the principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Virendra Singh (supra) and also the judgment of Full Bench of Patna High Court, which is quoted by the Division Bench, in my opinion, it is not just and proper to cancel the arms license of the petitioner because the ingredients mentioned in Section 7(3)(b) of Arms Act 1953 have not been made out against the petitioner.

Hence, petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 9/3/2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the appellate authority, i.e. Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and the order dated 6/1/2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Magistrate, Bhind are quashed. No order as to costs.