Mahender Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The orders in challenge before the Court are the orders passed in succession by authorities under the Arms Act canceling the arms license after a judgment of conviction was passed by a Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, against the petitioner for offence u/s 323, 325 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders canceling license does not set out anywhere, apart from stating an order of conviction that the license is required to be cancelled that mere is a threat to public peace in the manner that is contemplated u/s 17(3)(b). The learned counsel also refers to decisions of mis Court that hold that a mere observation of quarrelsome type of person (Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, 1991 (2) S.L.J. 1039 ) or an ex parte report of the Superintendent of Police ( Labh Singh Chattar Singh Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amble Division, Ambala and Another, ), could not be a ground for revocation of license. It has been held in the decision in Kakku Venkataramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1960 Andh. Pra. 420, that once a person is granted a license and acquires a gun, he has a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution (as it then existed) to hold the property subject only to the restriction imposed by the Arms Act and Rules and that right cannot be interfered with arbitrarily or capriciously. In this case, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no report from the Superintendent of Police or any police official to say that there is a danger to the security of public peace or for public safety. The mere re-statement of a conviction for an alleged incident of the year 1983 cannot be a ground for revocation of a license. The learned counsel argues that even when the license was issued on 17.07.1989 and subsequently renewed in 1990 and 1994, a criminal case was still pending, but the license has been cancelled for the only reason that the criminal case had resulted in conviction subsequently. The learned counsel states that a revision against the judgment is still pending before this Court.

The conviction in a criminal case could be relevant if there is also an observation or a finding that on account of such conviction there is a danger of misuse of license by the petitioner or that he entertains any criminal intent or enmity against the persons, who had originally lodged the complaint that led to conviction. The counsel for the petitioner relies on a certificate given by the Sarpanch and Panches of the Village of Naraingarh to say that he had never misused the gun or acted rudely on any occasion by complaint by any resident of the village that imperiled the safety in the village.

I will not go as far as to say that criminal case conviction is irrelevant but it shall be definitely a matter which shall be considered by the authority in the light of the circumstances that may or may not exist which could pose a threat to the security of public peace or for public safety. Without a definite finding relating to threat to such peace or safety in the manner contemplated u/s 17(3)(b), there could be no suspension or revocation of the license. The impugned orders suffers from the vice of a complete want of reference to the statutory requirement before it was cancelled. The impugned orders'' are, under the circumstances, set aside and the matter is remitted to the District'' Magistrate, Jind for fresh consideration for satisfaction on the basis of objective material for revocation or cancellation of license in the manner contemplated u/s 17(3Xb).

The writ petition is disposed of in the light of the above directions. The authority may give notice of hearing to the petitioner for making personal representation before taking a decision in the said manner. The case shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.