T.T. Gnanamurugan vs The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Madras - 5 and The Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector, Coimbatore

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the

Principal Commissioner and. Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai made in D.Dis(01) 111293/96 (A.A. No. 216/96)

dated 1.4.1997 and the proceedings of the second respondent in K. Dis. 42650/96/03, dated 12.11.1996 and quash the same and to direct the

respondents to renew the licence bearing No. 14/U/4 for DBBL Gun for the subsequent periods and pass such further orders. Petitioner is in

possession of double barrel Gun from the year 1959 and he has been given licence to possess the same from time to time. Even though originally

the licence was issued to possess the Gun throughout India, subsequently, the licence was restricted to Coimbatore District. It is the case of the

petitioner that he has been handling the Gun as per the provisions of the Arms Act and the terms and conditions stipulated. While he was away at

Madras for nearly a month during 1989, he kept the Gun in the bureau, which remained unlocked. A close relative of the petitioner secured the

Gun from Petitioner''s wife by falsely representing that he was in need of the gun for protecting his field from wild animals which was destroying his

crops in the field. Believing the said words of the relative, his wife without knowing the consequences handed over the Gun. The close relative

misused the said gun which resulted in Criminal Complaint. It is said that the case before the Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi was taken up and

ultimately ended in acquittal.

A case was also registered against the petitioner u/s 25(3)(1) of Arms Act, which was challenged by the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No.5374 of

1993 and the entire proceedings was quashed. Thereafter petitioner was asked to produce the original licence, which was also produced before

the Collector. Since the period of licence already expired, petitioner moved an application before the Licensing Authority to renew the licence to

possess the Double Barrel Gun. The same was dismissed and the matter was taken on appeal, which was also dismissed. The said orders are

challenged in this Writ Petition on various grounds.

I heard the Government Pleader also. Though no counter has been filed, Government Pleader, on instructions, argued the matter.

The licensing authority as per the order dated 12.11.1996 held that since the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore has clearly stated that the

applicant''s case is not recommended for renewal, the same is rejected. When the matter was taken up on appeal, the appellate authority held that

the appellant''s weapon was taken away from his house'' and was subsequently seized by the Police. Though the case against the appellant was

quashed by the High Court, appellant did not take due care, as a result of which the Gun was used in commission of I.P.C. Offence. The

Superintendent of Police also did not recommended for renewal of licence. Therefore the petitioner does not deserve to possess the weapon, and

the appeal was dismissed.

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the authorities below were justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal

of licence of Gun and whether this. Court can interfere in such decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Section 14(1)(b) of the Arms Act provide for the grounds on which renewal application could be rejected, which read thus,

Sec. 14(1)(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,

(i) Where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe-

(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or

ammunition, or,

(2) to be unsound mind or,

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act, or,

(ii) where the licensing authority deems fit necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.

The scope of Section 14 of the Act came up for consideration before the Full Bench of Honourable Patna High Court, reported in Kapildeo

Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . The Full Bench said that the refusal of grant of licence has to be judicially exercised and with proper

application of mind orders should be passed. The Full Bench further said that the power of the Courts is very much limited in such cases. At page

125 of the Volume the Full Bench held thus,

It would be manifest from the aforesaid provisions that under the Act there is first a legal bar for having in possession or carrying a firearm unless a

valid licence is first secured in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Secondly, even the original grant u/s 13 (2A) is vested entirely in the

licensing authority and it seems that the widest discretion has been given to it. Even after confirming to the procedural requirements, the licensing

authority may, as regards the general category of arms, either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. This discretion in this context has

perhaps been deliberately kept untrammelled. Further, u/s 14 the law mandates a refusal to grant licence even where the licensing authority has

reason to believe that the applicant is for any reason unfit for licence under the Act. The larger tilt of the law in this context is thus somewhat too

plain to call for further elaboration.

In paragraphs 9 to 12 of the said Judgment, their Lordships further held thus,

Now it is true that sub-section (3) does not in terms provide that the pendency of a criminal charge is a ground for the revocation of licence.

However, it is equally true that it is not possible for the legislature to conceive every situation in the future which may render the suspension of

revocation of a licence granted earlier necessary. It is, therefore, that the residuary discretion is left in the licensing authority. On this score, the

language employed is again of the widest amplitude. Clause (a) warrants revocation if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence

is for any reason unfit for the licence under the Act.

Now, the employment of such phraseology in the statute by the framers can leave no manner of doubt that a wide residuary discretion has been

vested in the licensing authority to revoke provided it is satisfied that the holder is unfit for the licence under the Act. The issue, thus, is whether the

pendency of a major or capital crime case may not, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, satisfy him that such a person is unfit for holding the

licence further. Plainly enough such discretion given by the statute cannot be put in a strait-jacket. It cannot possibly be said that in a particular case

the implication of the holder in serious or horrendous capital crime may not furnish an adequate ground for the licensing authority for being satisfied

that the former holder of the weapon is now unfit for the privilege of the licence granted under the Act. This more so in the light of the fact that sub-

section (1) requires the licensing authority to give notice in writing to deliver up the licence to it written such time as may be specified in the notice in

the event of variation, suspension and the revocation of licences. That would invariably give an opportunity to the licensee, as in the present case to

show some cause against such action. It is after consideration of this explanation that the licensing authority may, on the overall circumstances, be

satisfied from the nature of the case that the person is now unfit for continuing as a licensee for arms. A further safeguard is provided by sub-

section (5) of Section 17. The licensing authority must record in writing reasons therefore and also furnish to the holder of the licensee on demand a

brief statement of the same unless in exceptional cases he is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

Nevertheless the requirement of recording reasons in writing is inflexibly mandatory. Therefore, it cannot be easily said that the subjective

satisfaction of the licensing authority hedged in by the statutory requirement cannot be exercised on the basis of the pendency of the serious or

capital criminal charge. If such subjective satisfaction has been broadly and reasonably exercised, to my mind, it would come within the parameters

of the statute under Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17.

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 of revocation of a licence 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 under 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 be 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. It bears repetition that sub-section (3) puts the matter in the subjective

satisfaction of the licensing authority and inevitably the issue cannot be put in the Procrustean bed of a precise definition or an exhaustive

remuneration of situation in which such discretion may be exercised.

Mr. Mishra had then sought to contend that the actual use or misuse of the licensed weapon in the alleged murder and even the petitioner''s

participation therein is as yet subjudice before the Court of Session. Therefore, the licensing authority could draw no sustenance from what as yet

are only allegations in a pending case, for revoking the licence. This argument loses sight of the fact that under sub-section (3) (a) it is the subjective

satisfaction of the District Magistrate that for some reason the holder has become unfit for the licence. It is not the requirement of clause (a)

aforesaid that there must be a formal conviction on a criminal charge only for holding a person as unfit. There is a wide gap betwixt the two,

namely, a reasonable subjective satisfaction and an objective conviction on a criminal charge resting on the basis of acceptable evidence. One

cannot go to the length of holding that because the matter is as yet pending trial the licensing authority could not be subjectively satisfied about the

unfitness of the holder. If the argument of Mr. Mishra were to be accepted then in the context of even a most horrendous crime committed with

licensed weapons, the licensing authority would be denuded of all powers of suspending or revoking the licence till the completion of the trial and a

conviction therein. Perhaps, the matter can even be elongated so long as an appeal against such conviction may be pending. Indeed, it appears to

me that under sub-section (3) the actual conviction or acquittal on the criminal charge does not have an inflexible or conclusive impact on the

exercise of the discretion by the licensing authority thereunder. Even if the holder of the (sic)licence may be acquitted by narrowly giving the benefit

of doubt, the licensing authority could perhaps, still take the view that along with other factor such a person may not be fit for holding an arms

licence. Equally, conviction on any and every criminal charge would not provide an inflexible rule flat the licensing authority must revoke the same

and it may well be justified in allowing the continuance of the said licence. As is noticed hereafter, conviction and acquittal are issues of relevance

under sub-section (7) for the criminal Court and not conclusive for the licensing authority who is governed by the provisions of sub-section (3).

(Emphasis supplied)

On the basis of the above decision, we have to consider whether the authorities below are justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner.

Petitioner must know that he alone should possess the Gun and if it is taken by any third party it is likely to be misused. In this case the gun was

misused by the third party. While renewing the licence, the authorities below are justified in considering the fact that the weapon for which licence

has been granted is used in a crime. Such incident should not be allowed to be repeated is a relevant factor which they are entitled to be

considered while considering the application for renewal. While dismissing the appeal, the appellate authority has held that, ''only because appellant

did not take due care of the weapon, it was used for commission of an offence. Therefore, he is unfit to hold the same''.

When a discretion has been exercised by proper application of the mind as held in the Full Bench decision (cited supra), this Court is not

expected to interfere under Article 226of Constitution of India, unless the findings are perverse. No argument was put forward by the counsel for

the petitioner that the reasonings of the appellate authority is perverse. His argument was based on quashing of criminal complaint as against the

petitioner only. Merely because criminal complaint has been quashed, that will not entitle the petitioner to hold Double Barrel Gun. In the result, the

Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos.26992 and 26993 of 1997 are closed.