Sangat Singh vs Commissioner, Kumaun Division and Others

D.P.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner was a licensee in respect of a revolver (Licence No. 3794/DM/Ghazipur/1975) and a D.B.B.L. gun (Licence No. 8024/122-G Bazpur). In the night between 12/13-3-1982 dacoits raided his house. He used his firearms in his self defence. This user of the firearms in self defence has resulted in revocation of his firearms licenses.

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the constitution the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-2-1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as ''the District Magistrate'') revoking the aforesaid firearms licenses and the order dated 4-2-1985 passed in appeal there against by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as ''the Commissioner) affirming the same, and has prayed for the relief for quashing the same.

Brief facts leading to the controversy involved in the present petition are--

(a) That in the night between 12/13-3-1982 while the dacoits raided his house, the petitioner used the firearms in his self defence, in which exercise one of the dacoits who received injuries, died later on in the hospital. Thereupon a criminal case No. 48 of 1982 u/s 382, IPC was registered against one Naurang wherein the petitioner was one of the prosecution witnesses. This case, on account of the non-appearance of the accused, was closed under the orders of the Special Judge, Nainital, who directed for investigation against the petitioner after registering a case under Sections 302/307, IPC. Thus case No. 48A of 1982 was registered against the petitioner and simultaneously a report was sent to the District Magistrate for revocation of the licenses of the petitioner on the basis that a criminal case under Sections 302/307, IPC, has been registered against the petitioner under the orders of the Court and the petitioner had admitted that he used his firearms in self defence. Thereupon the District Magistrate gave a show cause notice to the petitioner, who replied the same. The District Magistrate, on the basis of the police report, revoked both the licenses of the petitioner vide his order dated 4-2-1984.

(b) That the aforesaid order of revocation was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeal, a final report, submitted after investigation, in Case No. 48-A of 1982, was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital on 21-8-1985 and this fact was brought to the notice of the Commissioner that in view of the acceptance of the final report on 21-8-1985 no case is pending against the petitioner and there has remained no scope, even for entertaining any doubt regarding non bona fide use of the firearms by the petitioner. The Commissioner did not probe into the matter in the proper perspective and dismissed the appeal in an arbitrary manner on 4-2-1985 maintaining the order of revocation passed by the District Magistrate. In the order, he observed that the main point which comes to light is that in the night between 12/13-3-1982 the petitioner certainly used his firearms, which he had himself admitted. No counter-affidavit, in spite of sufficient opportunity having been granted has been filed in the case since 1985.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction having been passed in an arbitrary manner for extraneous consideration without there being any material on record. He pointed out that the order of revocation passed by the District Magistrate was based on the basis of only police report which contained nothing against the petitioner except that the criminal case, registered against him under the orders of the court, was pending investigation and the petitioner has admitted the use of firearms in self defence. According to the petitioner, registration of any case for investigation against any person could not be made the basis for revocation of the firearms licenses. The use of the firearms in self defence also could not be a basis for revocation of the licenses. In the present case, there was no material before the District Magistrate so to come to the conclusion that the firearms were not used in self defence. It is apparent from the order of the District Magistrate that there was no material before him to show that the firearm was not ''used in self-defence. He based his order only on the fact of the user of the firearms by saying that he used the firearms may be for self defence. Thus, according to him, the order was not based on consideration germane to the purpose under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and is not based on the grounds for the purpose available under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. In the background of the facts, it is apparent that there was no material, whatsoever, on which it could have been considered that the revocation was necessary for public peace or public safety. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act is as extracted below:--

(3) the licensing authority may, by order in writing, suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence :--

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is 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 is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under Sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence."

The use of the firearms in self-defence is not ground for revocation under the aforesaid provision. From the facts and circumstances, it is established that it was not a case where the petitioner was prohibited from holding the firearms or he was of unsound mind or unfit for a licence under the Act. No threat or danger to the security of the public peace or public safety was there. Registration of a case is not sufficient and no conclusion can be drawn for revocation of the licences that it has become necessary in the interest of public peace and public safety. Accordingly, the case was only at the investigation stage and there was no material, whatsoever, regarding the misuse of the firearms by the petitioner. The District Magistrate has taken the use of the firearms by the petitioner as misuse of the firearms. The use of the firearms in self defence cannot be held to be the misuse of the firearms though there may be circumstances where a person may have exceeded his right of private defence, but, in the present case, there was even no such material before the District Magistrate. Thus, the order of revocation passed by the District Magistrate revoking the firearms licenses of the petitioner is based on no material and has been passed for consideration extraneous to law, as registration of a criminal case and the user of the firearms in self-defence cannot be a ground or material for revocation of licence. The order is not based on the material germane to the power and purpose of revocation under the Act and is also contrary to the object of the Act, as the Act is directed to arm the citizen with a firearm for ensuring his security.

After acceptance of the final report in the criminal case No. 48-A of 1982, even otherwise the basis of the order of the District Magistrate lost ground. The case of the petitioner that he used the firearms in self-defence was accepted. Both the basis for revocation in the order of the District Magistrate ceased to exist after the acceptance of the final report.

Learned standing counsel submitted that the order of the District Magistrate has merged in the order of the commissioner, who has held that the petitioner in the night between 12/13-3-1982 surely used the firearms which he himself had admitted and, in this view of the matter, this court should not interfere with the finding recorded by the Commissioner. The submission, as made by the learned standing counsel, has no substance. The final report in the criminal case No. 48-A of 1982 was accepted and after acceptance of the final report neither there remained any case pending against the petitioner nor there remained any doubt regarding the use of the firearms for the purpose other than in self defence. The case of the petitioner that he used the firearms in self defence was accepted as correct. From the record it appears that there was no admission by the petitioner that he misused his firearms. The admission was that he used his firearms in self-defence. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is apparently wrong. There is a lot of difference in the misuse of the firearms and the use in self-defense. The fact is that the petitioner never misused his firearms and the user of the firearms for self-defence cannot be held to be the misuse of the firearms.

Indian Arms Act, 1878 was intended to disarm the nation whereas the Act was brought to arm the citizen by equipping him with the firearm by granting him the privilege of a licence so that he may provide self security for himself-in in the background of deteriorating law and order situation on account of growing unsocial activities and unsocial elements in the society. The possession of the firearm is for the purpose of preserving the valuable right to life. If a person cannot use the firearm in self defence, then there is no use of having any firearm.

I am of the view that where the firearm is used in self-defence, such a user cannot be a ground for revocation of the licence. The impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate as well as by the Commissioner are bad. The licenses of the petitioner were revoked for extraneous consideration not sustainable in the eye of law and the orders deserve to be quashed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of revocation dated 4-2-1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital and the order of the Commissioner passed in appeal thereagainst dated 4-2-1985 are hereby quashed. The firearms licenses of the petitioner are restored with a direction to the District Magistrate for renewal of the same in accordance with law and for the return of the firearms together with the licenses to the petitioner, if they are in deposit, within a period of three months of the presentation of a certified copy of this order. Interim order dated 6-5-1985 is discharged. In the circumstances of the present case I make no order as to costs.