Baij Nath Rajak vs District Magistrate/Collector and Another

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The petitioner license holder of alleged arm has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of order dated 27.10.09 (Annexure P-5) passed by Commissioner Rewa Division, Rewa, in Case No. 109/Appeal/2002-03, affirming the order dated 12.12.02 passed by District Magistrate, Sidhi, in Case No. 752/R.D.M./02, whereby by virtue of Section 18 of Arms Act (In short "the Act") his license of rifle has been cancelled and revoked. The fact giving rise in this petition in short are that considering the application of the petitioner long before in the year 2000 for the purpose of self security a license of 12 bore rifle bearing no. 9/MP/S.D.D.-1/2000 was issued to him, pursuant to such license the petitioner had purchased the rifle. On dated 28.06.02 the minor son of the petitioner namely Sunny Kumar aged about 14 years by such rifle caused the fire on a minor girl of Smt. Kemala Rajak, namely Billu alias Renu Bai aged about 13 years, resultantly she died on sustaining the bullet injury. In this regard a crime was registered in concerning Police Station. Investigation was held, on completion of the same, the son of the petitioner Sunny Kumar was charge sheeted before the court of Juvenile Magistrate. After holding the trial on appreciation said Sunny Kumar was held guilty but taking into consideration that on the date of the incident he was juvenile that''s why he was directed to be released on some terms and conditions by the Juvenile Court. In such situation Superintendent of Police, Sidhi, had send the communication memorandum made to the licensing authority the District Magistrate of Sidhi, to cancel the aforesaid arms license of the petitioner stating that he is incompetent to keep and maintain the fire arm and the possibility to misuse of the same could not be ruled out.

Considering the aforesaid memo of the superintendent of police a show cause notice for revoking and cancelling the arm license was given to the petitioner, in response of it, the reply was filed but on consideration the same was not found satisfactory. Pursuant to it, the aforesaid license of the petitioner has been revoked and cancelled by the licensing authority the District Magistrate. Being dissatisfied of such order the petitioner filed the appeal in the court of Commissioner Rewa Division, on consideration by affirming the order of the district magistrate, the same was dismissed, on which the petitioner has come to this court with this petition.

The petitioner''s counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on the record including the impugned order of the Commissioner said that on the date of the aforesaid alleged incident when the fire was made by his minor son Sunny Kumar on the above mentioned girl Billu alias Renu Bai, the petitioner was not at the residence as he accompanied with his wife by locking the house had gone to the Police Hospital, Sidhi, in connection of "Tika of Hypotytis" for his wife and during such period in his absence by breaking the lock of the house the rifle was taken away by his son and caused the alleged incident. In continuation he said that in such situation it could not be deemed or assumed that at any point of time the petitioner was remained negligent either in keeping or in maintaining the aforesaid fire arm. In support of his contention he has also referred some papers placed on the record and the depositions of the eyewitnesses recorded in the criminal trial of the aforesaid case, and said that such evidence has not been considered either by the licensing authority and the appellate authority while passing order for revoking his license and on affirming the same by the appellate authority and prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority with a direction for restoration his armed license by allowing this petition.

On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments State counsel justified the impugned orders and said that same being based on proper appreciation of the evidence and inconformity with the law, does not require any interference under the writ jurisdiction enumerated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Having heard the petitioner''s counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order Annexure P-5. It is apparent fact on record that Sunny Kumar the minor son of the petitioner aged about 14 years after taking over the rifle of the petitioner caused fire on the aforesaid minor girl Billu alias Renu Bai aged about 13 years, on sustaining the bullet injury she died. Accordingly the son of the petitioner has murdered a innocent minor girl, if the rifle was kept with due diligence by the petitioner: then the same could not be taken away by his minor son and in such situation his son could not cause the fire on minor girl. Accordingly due to gross negligence of the petitioner in non keeping the fire arm in accordance with the terms and conditions of the fire arm license his minor son had got his rifle and committed a murder of the human being. It is also apparent on record that after holding the prosecution of the aforesaid son of the petitioner he has been held guilty for causing the murder of aforesaid girl but taking into consideration that he was juvenile on the date of the incident has been released on certain terms and conditions.

A person like petitioner, who could not keep the licensee fire arm i.e. rifle according to terms and conditions of the license is not entitled to keep such arms otherwise on account of the negligence of the petitioner against some unhappy incident may be happened by such rifle. In such premises, the licensing authority and the appellate authority had not committed any mistake in passing the impugned orders. Besides this from the papers placed, I have found sufficient circumstances to draw the interference that the petitioner has failed to keep the licensee rifle in accordance with the terms and conditions, as such the same was kept by him in a very negligent manner and that''s why the same had come in the hand of his son who misused the same as stated above so in such premises, the approach of the appellate authority or licensing authority revoking and cancelling the armed license of the petitioner could not be said to be contrary to law. In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any illegality, infirmity, perversity or anything against the propriety of law in the orders impugned requiring any interference at this stage under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits, by affirming the impugned order of the appellate authority, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.