SUKH RAM vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Sukh Ram, R/o Village Thirod, Tehsil & District Nagaur praying for quashment of order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the court of District Magistrate, Nagaur, whereby the armed license No. 10/91, granted to him, was revoked. The petitioner has also challanged the order dated 26.09.2011, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the former order has been dismissed by the Divisonal Commissioner, Ajmer.

Facts of the case, as disclosed from the record, are that the petitioner is an ex soldier, having retired from Jat Regiment of Indian Army. He, during his service, applied for license to keep shotgun of twelve bore. The District Magistrate granted him license No. 10/91 to keep the shotgun of twelve bore on 29.11.1984, which was valid all over India and thereafter the license was renewed from time to time. After retirement, the petitioner settled down in his parental house in Nagaur. According to him, he required a shotgun of twelve bore for security purpose as well as for service purposes because a soldier can get job on the post of guard if he is having a gun license. It so happened that an F.I.R. No. 19/2000 was registered against the petitioner by complainant Bhagirath at Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur, on 12.03.2000. A cross-case was also registered by the petitioner against aforementioned Bhagirath, being F.I.R. No. 20/2000 on 13.03.2000. After investigation, the police filed challan in both the matters in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nagaur. In the FIR lodged against the petitioner, the police filed challan for offence under Sections 336, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act.

After completion of trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges vide order dated 22.01.2001. The learned Judicial Magistrate in that order directed that if the petitioner presents certified copy of valid license before the court after expiry of limitation for filing the appeal, then the shotgun may be returned to the license holder otherwise it should be deposited at Police Line, Nagaur. The license of the gun was with the police as it was taken in its custody during investigation of the matter. The petitioner applied to the police authorities for release of the license but the license was not returned to the petitioner. Since the petitioner could not produce license of the gun before the concerned court, the gun was deposited at the Police Line, Nagaur, as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, it was lying at the Police Line, Nagaur. The petitioner tried his best to get the license but could not succeed. The Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, worte a letter on 24.03.2000 to the District Magistrate, Nagaur, requesting therein for cancellation of the license of petitioner. The District Magistrate, Nagaur, vide order dated 02.05.2000, suspended the licenses of the petitioner and complainant Bhagirath Ram, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur, was directed to seize the shotgun of twelve bore of both - the petitioner and complainant Bhagirath Ram. It is therefore that the licenses of the petitioner as also Bhagirath Ram were seized. The petitioner submitted a representation to the District Magistrate on 29.05.2000 requesting for release of his license. The District Magistrate passed an order dated 16.10.2006 revoking the license issued in favour of the petitioner as also license of Bhagirath Ram. The petitioner filed appeal no. 6/2010 under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, who, vide order dated 26.09.2011, dismissed the same. Hence this writ petition.

Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that the order passed by the District Magistarte, Nagaur, and the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, are wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, illegally wrote letter to the District Magistrate, Nagaur, for cancellation of his license. The commencement of proceedings by the District Magistrate on the said letter was therefore void ab initio. The action of the District Magistrate in suspending the license and directing the police authorities to impound the gun was also wholly illegal. During the pendency of the proceedings before the District Magistrate, Nagaur, the Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, acquitted the petitioner in regard to case No. 105/2000 and specifically directed return of the shotgun. This clearly shows that there was no evidence against the petitioner for misuse of the gun. The District Magistrate revoked the license without considering the clear order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur. Once the petitioner was acquitted of the charges, the gun as also the license was liable to be returned to him. The order of the court of Judicial Magistrate has to prevail over the order of the Executive Magistrate. Thus orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for petitioner, in support of the argument, has relied on the division bench judgment of this court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Khern Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005 CrLR 907 (Raj.), and single bench judgment in Lal Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 393/2014, decided on 28.11.2016. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents State, opposed the writ petition and submitted that even though it is a fact that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in Criminal Case No. 105/2000 but that was not an honourable acquittal of the petitioner as he was acquitted for offence under Section 323/34 IPC on the basis of compromise and for offence under Section 336 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act he was given the benefit of doubt. Learned Additional Advocate General disputed the fact that the court while acquitting the petitioner directed the authorities that the shotgun license of the petitioner should not be cancelled. The competent authority is fully authorized to revoke the license for public security and safety. Learned Additional Advocate General, in support of the case, has relied on the judgment of this court in Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2007 4 RajLW 3110 Raj . It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

Perusal of the judgment dated 22.01.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nagaur, in Criminal Case No. 105/2000, clearly shows that there were allegations against the petitioner as well as complainant Bhagirath to the effect that both used licensed guns and opened fire against each other, but also the fact is that complainant Bhagirath and injured Hariram produced a compromise deed before the Court on 17.01.2000 in so far the offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC was concerned. In the statement of complainant Bhagirath recorded as PW-1, he stated that accused subjected him to beating by kicks and feasts, but he did not make any allegation that accused opened fire by use of gun, Hariram (PW-3), the injured, has also not supported the allegation and was declared hostile. It was therefore that the accused-petitioner was acquitted.

The division bench of this court in Khern Singh, supra, has held that the licensing authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the license. A license can be revoked under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed. This judgment was followed by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Lal Chand, supra. Contrary judgment cited by learned Additional Advocate General for respondents, is found distinguishable because therein the petitioner was found involved in offence in as many as 13 cases and even proceedings under Section 110 of the CrPC were initiated against him. There was sufficient material with the court to conclude that retention of arms by him may cause threat to public peace and safety and therefore the objective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate in that case was held to be justified.

In the present case, the license of the petitioner has been suspended on the ground of his involvement in the solitary criminal case, which has not been substantiated. Finding has been recorded by the learned District Magistrate that as per the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 05.04.2005, there was apprehension of breach of public peace. There was no credible material with the District Magistrate to record such a finding. Learned Appellate Authority has also not furnished any justification as to how on the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate concluded that there was threat to public peace and public safety.

In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.10.2006 of the District Magistrate, Nagaur, and dated 26.09.2011 of the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Nagaur, for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for renewal of the shotgun twelve bore license in the terms of the aforesaid discussion. Appropriate order thereabout be passed within two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.