Delhi High Court
Shri Jawahar Singh Parihar vs Government Of National Capital ... on 22 April, 2003
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside of order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Lieutenant Governor in case No. 33/2000-CA being an appeal under Section 9(1) of the Arms Act 1959.
2. The appeal was against an order dated 6.10.99 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) cancelling the petitioner's arms license No. EDKP-030038 for one .32 bore NPB revolver No. D-40354. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal and passing of the impugned order in appeal dated 24.5.2000 are as under:-
2.1. The petitioner had been granted an arms license in respect of the aforesaid revolver on 31st March, 1995. At that time the petitioner had applied for the arms license as per form A of Schedule III prescribed by the Arms Rule, 1962. The arms license is granted under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2.2 By an order-cum-show cause notice dated 26.2.98, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), Delhi required the petitioner to show cause as to why his arms license should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned therein. The reasons mentioned were that inquiries had been conducted from SP/Almora (UP) about the criminal involvements of Shri Jawahar Singh Parihar (i.e.petitioner) in the following cases:
i) Case FIR No. 36/75 U/S 394 IPC, Almora UP- Convicted.
ii) Case FIR No. 38/75 U/S 25 Arms Act, Almora UP - do-
iii) Case FIR No. 2/76 U/s 302/452 IPC, Almora UP -do-
iv) Case FIR No. 45/35 U/S 302/207/34/379 IPC Almora UP -do-
2.3 It was further recited in the said show cause notice that at the time of applying for the license, the petitioner had concealed the facts that he was convicted in the aforesaid cases and that he was also a history sheeter of bundle `A' of P.S. Bageshwar (UP). At the bar, we are informed that bundle `A' refers to the category of criminals who have committed heinous crimes. It is further stated in the said show cause notice that the above act of concealment of facts renders the petitioner unfit to hold the arms license under Section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959 in the interest of public safety and peace.
2.4 The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 9.3.98 wherein he denied his conviction under Section 394 IPC in respect of FIR 36/75. As regards cases under Section 25 of the Arms Act pertaining to the FIR 38/75 and under section 302/452 pertaining to FIR2/76, he submitted that the same are correct and that in each case he was convicted and sentenced for six months. However, on a point of law, he submitted that as these sentences had expired more than 5 years of the date of application for license, the same did not disqualify him for applying the arms license under Section 9 of the Arms Act, 1959. As regards his conviction under FIR 45/85 under Section 302/307/34/379 IPC he also admitted the same to be correct. He, however, submitted that he had filed an appeal in the High Court of Allahabad against the said conviction and that the conviction and sentence had been suspended and therefore he could not be considered as having been convicted until the final decision of the Appeal Court. He further submitted that in any event the conviction by the Trial Court was also not within the period of five years under Section 9 of the Arms Act, when he applied for the license. This last submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly stated, may not be entirely correct.
2.5 As regards the allegation of the petitioner being a history sheeter of bundle `A', the petitioner submitted that the same was false. Accordingly, the petitioner, by virtue of his reply dated 9th March, 1998 prayed that the arms license may not be revoked and the same may be renewed after its expiry on 15.03.1998.
2.6 The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), Delhi after considering the reply filed to the said show cause notice and other surrounding circumstances found that the petitioner was not a fit person to retain the arms license in the interest of public safety and peace as he had concealed the facts of his involvement in criminal cases at the time of obtaining arms license. Accordingly, by an order dated 03.10.1999 he cancelled the said arms license in respect of the petitioner with immediate effect.
2.7 Being aggrieved by this order of cancellation of arms license, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 9(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 before the Lieutenant Governor. It is the Lieutenant Governor's order dated 24.5.2000 which is impugned in this writ petition. By his order dated 24.5.2000, the Lt. Governor after hearing the parties and going through the documents on record, found that the appellant had been convicted on four separate occasions for grevious offences including a case registered under Section 302/307 IPC and as such he was definitely not a fit person to retain the arms license. He found, as a matter of fact, that the retention of the arms license with such a person would only endanger public peace and tranquility and upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) whereby the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled.
3. The only point that was made by the counsel for the petitioner was that Section 17(3) of the Arms Act which had been invoked for cancellation of the license would be applicable only if there was a suppression of material information or if the license is obtained on the basis of wrong information provided by a holder of a license or any other person on his behalf. It is his submission that grant of a license to him was not prohibited under Section 9 of the Arms Act on the facts of the case. He, however, submitted that if he was finally convicted in the case pending before the Allahabad High Court then Section 9 would come into play and he would be barred from obtaining an arms license. But, till such eventuality, particularly, in view of the fact that the conviction in that case has been suspended, he could not be considered as being prohibited from obtaining an arms license. This argument is, however, not relevant because the main ground on which the license had been cancelled, was concealment of material facts as also provision of wrong information by the petitioner at the time of applying for the license.
4. It is clear from the original application for license which has been produced in the court that Item No. 9 (a) of Part B of the form for application of the arms license requires the applicant to state as to whether the applicant has been convicted and if so the offence(s), the sentence(s) and the date(s) of sentence(s). Against this item, the petitioner as a matter of fact has given the answer "Never". This statement is false inasmuch as even in the reply dated 9.3.98 to the said show cause notice, the petitioner had admitted that he had been convicted for some of the offences mentioned therein. Therefore, it is clear that it is on the basis of wrong information provided by the petitioner that the petitioner had obtained the license. When this came to the knowledge of the Licensing Authority, they issued a show cause notice, granted him opportunity of hearing and after considering the facts and circumstances decided to cancel the arms license. Being aggrieved by the original order of cancellation, the petitioner had also filed an appeal under the Act before the Lt. Governor who, also, after considering the facts and circumstances and hearing both the parties, upheld the order of cancellation.
I find no infirmity in impugned order dated 24.5.2000 and as such the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
