Bombay High Court
Balaji Pundlikrao Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 June, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
criwp1415.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1415 OF 2016
Balaji Pundlikrao Shinde
age 51 years, occ. agriculture
r/o Saraswati Colony
old Ausa
Latur Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad
3. The Collector, Latur
District Latur.
4. The Superintendent of Police
Latur. Respondents
Mr. A.N. Sabnis, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Mundhe, A.P.P. for all Respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 9th JUNE, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally at admission stage by consent of learned
counsel for the respective parties.
{2}
criwp1415.16.odt
3. Petitioner is a holder of arms licence which was granted in
the year 2001. The licence of the petitioner was in force upto 31st
December, 2013. After expiry of the licence, petitioner tendered
application to the District Magistrate seeking renewal. The District
Magistrate, however, issued notice in the month of July 2014
calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the arms licence
issued in his favour shall not be cancelled on account of
registration of crime bearing no. 54/2004 under sections 447, 427,
323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against him. After receipt of
reply of petitioner, the District Magistrate, vide order dated
19.01.2015, proceeded to direct revocation of the arms licence
issued in favour of petitioner. Petitioner presented appeal to the
appellate forum i.e. Divisional Commissioner, which came to be
decided on 25.05.2016. The appellate authority, while rejecting the
appeal has confirmed the order passed by the District Magistrate.
4. Petitioner contends that though the offence was registered in
the year 2005 under sections 447, 427, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, the arms licence issued in his favour was renewed
from time to time till 2013. Petitioner further contends that he has
been acquitted in the criminal case lodged against him on
28.04.2014 however, without taking notice of this fact, the District
Magistrate proceeded to direct revocation of the licence. The
appellate forum also has not applied its mind to this crucial aspect
and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
5. On perusal of the judgment in the criminal case, it is evident
that the criminal case lodged against petitioner arises out of the
civil dispute between two parties claiming their entitlement in
{3}
criwp1415.16.odt
respect of a residential plot. The dispute between the parties
arises as a result of property rights in relation to the residential
property. The complainant has not alleged that the petitioner, at
any point of time, has misused the weapon or threatened the
complainant with the weapon. There is absolutely no nexus
between issuance of arms licence or possession of the weapon by
the petitioner and the alleged crime registered against him. Apart
from this, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge levelled
against him. Petitioner is a possessor of arms licence since 2001,
which was renewed upto the year 2013. There is no allegation
levelled against the petitioner in respect of misuse of the arm
possessed by him. There is also no allegation made in the
complaint lodged against the petitioner which is a basis for
revocation of the arms licence issued in favour of petitioner.
6. Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959, mandates that a licence
under section 3 shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for a
period of three years from the date on which it was granted. It is
further provided under sub-section (2) that licence under any other
provision of Chapter II shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in
force for such period from the date on which it is granted as as the
licensing authority may in each case determine. Sub-section (3) of
section 15 provides that every licence shall, unless licensing
authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in
any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence
was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time,
and the provisions of sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal
of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof. Section 13 and 14 of
the Act relates to grant of licences and refusal thereof. Petitioner
{4}
criwp1415.16.odt
has been granted licence in the year 2001. Although provision
relating to refusal i.e. section 14 has application by virtue of sub-
section (3) of section 15, there is absolutely no ground made out for
revocation of the licence. Even otherwise, licence is renewable
unless the same is revoked for the reasons to be recorded in
writing. The authority directing revocation of the licence is
expected to apply its mind to the record of the case and thereafter
take decision. In the instant matter it appears that neither the
issuing authority nor the appellate authority has applied its mind
to the record of the case and has casually turned down the request
of the petitioner for renewal of the licence. The crime alleged
against the petitioner has no nexus with issuance of arms licence
and, apart from this, petitioner has been acquitted of the charge
levelled against him. Dispute between the parties giving rise to the
alleged crime is essentially of civil nature. In our view, the order
passed by the issuing authority as well as appellate authority
being without application of mind to the record of the case,
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. Order passed by the issuing authority on 19.01.2015 as well
as appellate authority dismissing the appeal on 25.05.2016 are
quashed and set aside and, the District Magistrate, issuing
authority, is directed to grant renewal of licence in accordance with
the provisions of Arms Act, 1959. Necessary steps shall be taken
within a period of eight weeks from today. Rule made absolute.
( A.M. DHAVALE ) ( R.M.BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
