Vishnu Dhanraj Adwani vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 25.03.2019 cancelling the petitioner’s arms licence, order dated 22.03.2021 rejecting renewal of licence and order dated 12.03.2026, by which the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner.

As per the contention of the petitioner that he is a small businessman running “Advani Dhaba” at Panchgaon, Nagpur. He was granted an arms licence for a 32 bore revolver for self protection and always complied with the conditions of the licence. In the year 2017, the First Information Report came to be registered against the petitioner following an altercation at his Dhaba. During the investigation, the licensed weapon was seized and was subsequently released to the petitioner by the competent Court on Suprutnama. During the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, the petitioner deposited the weapon with the authorities as required. However, the licence was cancelled on the basis of pending criminal cases and was never renewed. The criminal trial was culminated against the present petitioner and by the judgment dated 22.09.2022, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges. It is further contended by the petitioner that against the cancellation of his licence, he has preferred an appeal before he Appellate Authority i.e. State Home Ministry, but it was also dismissed. Being aggrieved with the same, the present petition is filed.

Heard learned counsel Shri. R. M. Daga for petitioner who submitted that by applying Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act his appeal was dismissed by the Minister. In fact, he submitted that the petitioner was acquitted from the charges. The witnesses upon whom the prosecution relied have not supported the prosecution case as far as the use of the arm licence by the petitioner or his son is concerned. He submitted that the Minister has not considered these aspects and has erroneously dismissed the appeal. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.316 of 2026 and submitted that this Court had already considered the aspect and granted permission to renew the licence. In view of that, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri. A. R. Chutke for the respondents/State strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that, as far as the decision in Criminal Writ Petition No.316 of 2026 is concerned, it should not be applicable, as in that case there was no use of the arm licence, whereas here, the allegation against the present petitioner is that the said arm was used by the son of the present petitioner to threaten the witnesses. The petitioner and his son were charged with an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC; thus, there is a likelihood of misuse of the weapon if the licence is granted to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court at the Principal Seat in the case of Ajay Jayawant Bhosale vs. Commissioner of Police, Pune, reported in 2016(3) AIR BomR (Cri) 90, and submitted that, in view of the above, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire record, there is no dispute that the present petitioner was involved in Crime No.265 of 2017 punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. Undisputedly, the petitioner was acquitted from the said offences. The relevant provisions in respect of grant of licence are enumerated in Chapter III of the Arms Act. Section 13 refers to grant of licences. Section 14 refers to refusal of licences. Section 15 refers to duration and renewal of licences and Section 17 refers to variation, suspension and revocation of licences. Section 13(2) reads as under :

Section 14 speaks that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant licence on the ground stipulated under Section 14. Under Section 17(2), the licensing authority gets power to vary, suspend or revoke the licence which was already granted. In the present case, the Appellate Authority exercised powers under Section 17(3), which reads as under :

It is significant to note that Section 17(3)(b) authorises the licensing authority to cancel or revoke the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. The provisions indicate that in case the licensing authority is subjectively satisfied that in a given case, if continuation of licence endangers public peace or public safety, then the licensing authority is empowered to cancel or revoke the licence.

As far as the present case is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, though submitted that there is an apprehension of misuse of the said licence, the said apprehension is not based upon any material. Therefore, as far as the involvement of the present petitioner is concerned, the same has already been adjudicated by the competent Court, and as the prosecution witnesses have not supported the allegation regarding misuse of the arm, the petitioner and his son have been acquitted of the charges. Therefore, at this stage, the apprehension raised by the State appears to be baseless. Even if it is accepted that there is some apprehension, a condition can be imposed on the present petitioner.

In the present case, the licensing authority had earlier already granted a licence to the present petitioner, and except for Crime No.265 of 2017, which was registered on 15.10.2017, there is no complaint that either he has misused it or taken advantage of the same. As far as the allegation in the said crime is concerned, the same has not been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses, and therefore, the petitioner and his son came to be acquitted. Therefore, the contention of the State that, as there is an apprehension that he would misuse the same, the licence should not be granted, is not sustainable, as it is without sufficient material on record.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decision of this Court at the Principal Seat, wherein, in paragraph 13, it has been observed by this Court that nothing was placed before the Court by the respondents to indicate that the petitioner had misused the licensed weapon at any point in the past. The order of revocation of the licence refers to two criminal cases registered against the petitioner. In fact, we find that mere registration of a criminal case/cases could not be a ground to revoke the licence. The order shall clearly indicate that the continuance of the licence would be against public peace, safety and security.

As we have already observed, the allegation in Crime No.265 of 2017 has not been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses, and therefore, the charge was not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the observations made in the present case also, mere registration of the crime is not sufficient to cancel the licence, and therefore, the order of the earlier authority shall clearly indicate that the continuance of the licence would be against public peace, safety and security, which is absent in the present case.

In the present case, the arms licence was granted for personal safety and security after due enquiry conducted by the licensing authority in accordance with the provisions contained in the Arms Act, 1959. The provisions of the Arms Act with regard to the suspension or cancellation of the arms licence cannot be exercised lightly or in an arbitrary manner. However, considering the offence registered against the present petitioner in the past, a condition is required to be imposed on the present petitioner. In view of that, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :

ii) The order passed by respondent No.1 dated 12.03.2026, order dated 25.03.2019 and order dated 22.03.2021 are hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) We direct the respondent No.2 to renew the Arms Licence in view of the petitioner’s application, if he prefers.

iv) Respondent No.2 is at liberty to cancel the licence on observing any misconduct or contravention on the part of the petitioner or his relatives.

Rule is made absolute in the above said terms.