Kulvinder Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard. This revision is directed against the order dated 20th of October, 2010, passed by Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital, in Arms Appeal No. 10 of 08/09, where by the said authority has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, canceling the Arms licenses of the revisionist Kulvinder Singh in case No. 52/25 of 2007. Also, the order dated 6.3.2007, passed by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, canceling the Arms license of the revisionist is challenged.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

Brief facts of the case are that revisionist Kulvinder Singh resident of District Rampur in Uttar Pradesh, had Arm license No. 1656/GII, under which he was in possession of DBBL, Gun No. 68186-989 and Arm license No. 1655/GII, under which he was holding Rifle bore 315 No. 522. The revisionist is said to have been found transporting on 20th of January, 2007, illicit liquor in Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. U.P.22F3900 along with some other persons with in the limits of District Udham Singh Nagar, in Uttarakhand. It appears that the revisionist was arrested along with the Arms and the liquor with three other persons, and crime No. 585 of 2007, relating to offence punishable u/s 60/72 of U.P. Excise Act, and Crime No. 586 of 2007, relating to offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act and Crime No. 587 of 2007, relating to offence punishable u/s 30 of the Arms Act, were registered at Police Station Kashipur. It appears that Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar submitted the report dated 19th of February, 2007, to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, recommending the cancellation of Arms licenses held by revisionist Kulvinder Singh. On said report, show cause notice was issued to the revisionist, who failed to submit his reply. Consequently, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, vide his order dated 12th of March, 2009, cancelled both the above licenses. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in case No. 52125 of year 2007, the present revisionist Kulvinder Singh filed Arms Appeal No. 10 of 2008-09, u/s 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, before the Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital.

The said authority (Commissioner Kumaon Division) Nainital vide impugned order dated 20.10.2010, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued before this Court that District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, was not the licensing authority of the two arms, of which licenses were cancelled. Attention of this Court is drawn to the impugned order from which it is clear that the licenses cancelled, were actually issued by the District Magistrate, Rampur (Uttar Pradesh). It is further contended that the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, passed the order without jurisdiction, and the impugned order of Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital upholding the order of the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar is erroneous in law.

On perusal of the lower court record, which was summoned by this Court, it is clear that the two licenses held by the revisionist were issued by the District Magistrate, Rampur. The revisionist Kulvinder Singh, is the resident of Jamna Jamni Farm Maswasi, within the limits of Police Station Swar, District Rampur (Uttar Pradesh). The impugned order dated 20.10.2010, passed by Commissioner (appellate authority) itself reveals that the two licenses were issued to revisionist Kulvinder Singh, by the District Magistrate, Rampur.

Section 17 of Arms Act, empowers "The Licensing Authority" to vary, suspend or revoke the license issued under the Arms Act, 1956. I agree with learned counsel for the revisionist that the expression "The Licensing Authority" refers only to those licensing authorities, who have either issued the license or renewed the same, regarding which order of variation or suspension or revocation is required to be passed. Since, the word "The" is affixed with expression "Licensing Authority" as such in the opinion of this Court, that particular licensing authority has power to vary, suspend or revoke the license, which has either issued it or renewed it. The provision contained in Section 17 of the Act, read with rules, makes it amply clear that no other licensing authority has power to vary, suspend or revoke the licenses. In the present case, the license is issued by the licensing authority i.e. District Magistrate, Rampur, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, but the same is cancelled by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar of State of Uttarakhand. In Nirman Singh Vs. Commissioner, Meerut Division and Another, his lordship of Allahabad High Court has only held that the license issued by the District Magistrate, has validity in the territory of that District only, and the Arms purchased under such license can be confiscated by other District Magistrate, if the same is not valid there or terms of license violated. But it does not say that the license issued by one District Magistrate, can be cancelled by the District Magistrate of another District of other State where the same was not even valid.

The view taken in Raghuraj Singh Vs. The District Magistrate and Others, is superseded by the view taken in the Niman Singh''s Case (supra). In the opinion of this Court the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, could have recommended the licensing authority at Rampur, to cancel the license of the revisionist. For the reasons as discussed above, this revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 12th of March, 2009, passed by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, in case No. 52/25 of 2007 and the impugned order dated 20.10.2010, passed by the Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital, in Arms Appeal No. 10 of 2008-09, are hereby set-aside. However, it is clarified that the action u/s 17 can be taken by the licensing authority concerned. It is also clarified that if the Arms were used in violation of terms of license or within the area for which it was not valid, this order would not affect trial of the accused.