Sardar Ahamad Khan vs District Magistrate Kanpur Nagar Kanpur

V.M. Sahai, J.—The petitioner is a Doctor. He has his clinic at Chakeri in District Kanpur Nagar which is at the outskirts of Kanpur city. He has alleged various incidents of murder kidnapping and robbery which are frequently taking place in the area and since he has to return .from his clinic at about 11 or 12 p.m. in the night alone by his car, therefore, on 3181998 he applied for grant of licence for Revolver. The Circle Officer of the police station of the area made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. It was disclosed by the petitioner that he is already having a licence of D.B.B.L. gun which has never been misused by him. He states that it was not possible for him to travel with D.B.B.L. gun in his Maruti Car, therefore, he applied for licence for Revolver. The application of the petitioner has been rejected by District Magistrate on 171999 on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed any special reasons for obtaining another arm licence when he is already having one arm licence. The order dated 171999 has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

Heard Shri S.T.M. Rizvi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Srivastava learned standing Counsel for the respondents.

Since the District Magistrate had rejected the application only because the petitioner should have disclosed special reason for another licence it is not necessary to call for any counter affidavit and the petition is being finally disposed of after hearing learned Counsel for parties.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that under Section 3 of the Arms Act, there is no provision that a person cannot hold more than one Arm licence, therefore, the order of District Magistrate was arbitrary. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel urged that the petitioner is required to disclose special reasons for obtaining another arm licence and the refusal of arm licence by the respondents was in accordance with law.

For ready reference Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959, the relevant part of Section 3 is extracted below:

�3. Licence tor acquisition and possession of fire arms and ammunition:

(1) No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in) this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made th4reunder.

Provided that a person may, without himself holding a licence, carry any firearm or ammunition in the presence, or under the written authority, of the older of the licence for repair or for renewal oil the licence or for use by such holder. ;

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (l)no person, other than a person referred to in subjection (3), shall acquire, have in his possession Or carry, at any time, more than three firearms.

Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than three at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 198.3, may retain with him any three of such firearms and shall deposit, within ninety days from such commencement the remaining firearms with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed, for the purposes of subsection (1) of Section 21, with a licenced dealer, or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a Unit armory referred to in that subsection.

A bare reading of subsection (2)of Section 3 makes it clear that any person is entitled to acquire and possess three fire arms. Even the proviso requires a person having more Chan three arms on the date the Amendment Act 1983 came into force to surrender more than three arms. Thus the acquiring and possessing of more than one arms is not prohibited. On the other hand it is permitted. Section 3 does not provide that for acquiring a licence, for a second arms the applicant has to disclose some special reason. The law does not provide for stating any special reasons for obtaining other fire bar. The application of the other firearm made by the petitioner could have been rejected by the respondents on the ground that the police report was not in hiss favour. The order passed by District Magistrate does not disclose any reason for refusing the licence for possessing revolver by the petitioner. The only reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner has not disclosed any special reasons for acquiring second arm licence. If law does not prohibit the petitioner from obtaining another arm licence. It could not be refused by the respondents on the ground that special persons were required to be disclosed. The order of District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur dated 171999 cannot be maintained.

In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 171999 passed by District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Annexure2 to the writ petition is quashed. The respondent is directed to issue arm licence to the petitioner applied by .him in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent. Petition allowed