[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri A Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
WP No. 8886 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 8886 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A. RAVI,
S/O ANDANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
TIMBER MERCHANT,
RESIDING AT NO.101,
TOTADAGUDDADAHALLI,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
NAGASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 73.
ALSO CARRYING ON BUSINESS
UNDER THE NAME AND
STYLE R K RESORT,
Digitally signed
ANCHEPALYA,
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH
NAGASANDRA POST,
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 073.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G BALAJI NAIDU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
WP No. 8886 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU URBAN,
KHANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BENGALURU NORTH,
PEENYA SECOND FLOOR,
KIADB BUILDING, P BLOCK,
4TH STAGE, PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
PEENYA SUB - DIVISION,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560 058.
5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO RETURN THE PETITIONERS LICENSED
PISTOL BEARING WEAPON NUMBER 97280 (CZ MAKE) ALONG
WITH 4 AMMUNITION CONFISCATED BY MADANYAKANAHALLI
POLICE STATION ON 12.03.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE - E AND
ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
WP No. 8886 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner asserts to be a law abiding citizen
and claims to be carrying on business under the name
and style R.K. Resort at Thottadaguddadahalli,
Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru District. The petitioner
possesses a valid licence to hold arms issued in Form
No.3 under the Arms Act, 1959 bearing licence
number MAG(S) ARMCR 61/11-12.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of
the Respondent No.5 - Inspector of Police in
confiscating the petitioner's licenced arms on the
premised that the complaint is lodged by petitioner's
son.
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner calls in question the action of
respondent No.5 in confiscating the licensed arms,
inter alia contending that the said authority lacks
jurisdiction to order confiscation. Placing strong
reliance on Section 32 of the Arms Act, 1959, learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
statutory scheme clearly postulates that confiscation
of arms can be ordered only by a competent criminal
court and that too upon culmination of trial resulting
in conviction. It is further contended that the role of
the police or executive authorities is only ancillary and
limited to acting in aid of, or in compliance with,
directions issued by a competent court. In the absence
of any such adjudication or direction by the
jurisdictional criminal court, the unilateral action of
respondent No.5 in confiscating the licensed arms is
without authority of law and is liable to be set aside.
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
HC-KAR
4. This Court has carefully considered the
submissions and has adverted to the mandate of
Section 32 of the Arms Act, 1959. A plain reading of
the said provision makes it manifest that the power of
confiscation is not an independent executive power,
but one that is intrinsically linked to judicial
determination by a competent criminal court upon
recording of conviction. The provision does not vest
any suo motu power in the police authorities to
confiscate licensed arms dehors such adjudication. In
the present case, admittedly, no such conviction has
been recorded nor is there any order passed by a
competent criminal court directing confiscation. The
impugned action of respondent No.5, therefore, runs
contrary to the statutory framework and amounts to
an excess of jurisdiction.
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
HC-KAR
5. This Court also finds considerable force in
the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the genesis of the action lies in a
complaint lodged by the petitioner's son, which, on the
face of it, discloses a familial discord between father
and son. While such disputes may warrant appropriate
preventive measures in accordance with law, the
drastic step of confiscation of licensed arms, in the
absence of statutory sanction, cannot be sustained.
The impugned action, therefore, appears to be not
only without jurisdiction but also disproportionate and
arbitrary.
6. In the above backdrop, this Court is of the
considered view that the action of respondent No.5 in
confiscating the licensed arms warrants interference.
However, in order to balance the concerns of safety
and to ensure that the licensed arms are not misused,
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
HC-KAR
this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner
to furnish an affidavit undertaking that he shall not,
under any circumstances, threaten or endanger his
son or any of his family members by use of the
licensed arms.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The action of respondent No.5 in
confiscating the petitioner's licensed arms
and ammunition is set aside.
(iii) Respondent No.5 is directed to restore
custody of the licensed arms along with
ammunition to the petitioner, subject to the
petitioner furnishing an affidavit of
undertaking stating that he shall not use the
licensed arms to threaten, intimidate, or
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
HC-KAR
cause harm to his son or any of his family
members.
(iv) Upon such affidavit being filed,
respondent No.5 shall forthwith, and in any
event within a period of four (4) weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, hand over custody of the confiscated
arms and ammunition to the petitioner.
(v) It is made clear that any breach of the
undertaking so furnished by the petitioner
would entail appropriate action in
accordance with law, including
reconsideration of the licence.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
