Jaffrudin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10270 MP

                             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                  ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2022

            WRIT PETITION No. 5383 of 2013

      Between:-

      JAFFRUDIN, S/O SHRI KAMRUDIN, AGED
      ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O SEMAI ROAD,
      VIJAYPUR, DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                          .....PETITIONER

      (BY SHRI SOURAV SINGH TOMAR - ADVOCATE)

      AND

1.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
      HOME,    VALLABH    BHAWAN,       BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.    THE      COMMISSIONER,           CHAMBAL
      DIVISION, MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.    THE         COLLECTOR/           DISTRICT
      MAGISTRATE,      DISTRICT        SHEOPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.    THE     SUPERINTENDENT      OF    POLICE,
      DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                       2

                                                     .....RESPONDENTS

       (BY SHRI GOPAL CHAURASIYA - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT

       ADVOCATE. )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

                               ORDER

(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25/06/2013 passed by Commissioner, Chambal Division, whereby the appeal against the order dated 18/12/2012 passed by the Collector, Sheopur, was dismissed. Further the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18/12/2012 passed by the Collector, Sheopur whereby the arms license No.120/DM/Sheopur, issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he is a dreaded criminal and is involved in various criminal cases. (2) The facts as stated reveals that in the year 2002, the petitioner applied for grant of license and after considering the documents submitted and after conducting a detailed scrutiny license No.120/DM/Sheopur was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 2004, on a recommendation by respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police that a criminal case No.50/2003 had been registered against the petitioner, respondent No. 3, the

Collector cancelled the arms license. An appeal was preferred against the said cancellation by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, and vide order dated 11/03/2005 the matter was remanded back to the Collector, as it was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(3) After remand Collector called a representation from the Superintendent of Police, which was received on 05/02/2008, wherein recommendation was not made for grant of license on the ground that in the criminal case there was an acquittal of the petitioner on the ground of compromise, which cannot be termed as a clean acquittal and since he had a criminal background. (4) The Collector under apprehension of misuse of the weapon called another report from Superintendent of Police. The said report was received on 30/06/2012, wherein it was mentioned that five cases in Police Station Vijaypur were registered against the petitioner, vide crime No. 53/03 u/s 323, 341, 294, 506B/34 I.P.C., vide crime No.123/04 u/s 147, 148, 149, 294 I.P.C. read with sections 3(1)(5) SC/ST Act, vide crime No. 66/05 u/s 323, 341, 324 I.P.C., vide crime No. 85/05 u/s 234, 323/34 I.P.C. and vide crime No.39/08 u/s 324, 323 I.P.C. In the report it was also mentioned that out of five cases in two the petitioner had been acquitted and two matters ended in compromise and one was closed by the Police and after 2008 there were no cases registered against the petitioner. Thus, on the basis of the representation of

the Superintendent of Police and holding him to be a habitual criminal, the arms license was again cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 18/12/2012. Against the said order again an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before Commissioner, which also came to be dismissed. Hence this Petition. (5) Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that earlier the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police dated 26/05/2004 were on the premise that a crime u/s 323, 341, 294, 506B/34 I.P.C. vide crime No.50/2003 was registered against the petitioner, therefore, his license should be cancelled, but later it was found that under the said crime number the petitioner was not an accused, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Collector, to decide it afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Collector, without ascertaining the fact as to whether a crime vide crime no.50/2003 had been registered against the petitioner, went on to call fresh representation and on the basis of those representations held that five cases were registered against the petitioner at Police Station Vijaypur, out of which two matters ended in compromise, which cannot be said to be clean acquittal and on the basis of the past history held the petitioner to be a habitual criminal, ignoring that in all the matters the petitioner had been acquitted and one matter was closed and after year 2008 no case had been registered against him, on a wrong premise cancelled the license.

(6) Per contra learned Government Advocate submits that the

petitioner is a habitual criminal against whom 6 cases were registered and mere acquittal from criminal cases does not entitle him to possess arms license. Order of cancellation of the license cannot be said to be perverse as no arms license should be issued to a person who is threat to the society. It was also argued that even u/s 17 of the Arms Act the licensing authority can suspend or revoke the license if it is beneficial for public peace or public safety.

(7) Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and peruse the record.

(8) Section 17 (3)(b) lays down that " if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence". (9) A bare reading of Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act makes it evident that the licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as he things fit or revoke a licence; (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence. These two expressions "Security of public peace" and "for public safety" are of utmost importance. The licensing authority must be satisfied of the existence of these pre conditions.

(10) From the impugned orders nothing could be demonstrated by the State to indicate that the petitioner had misused the weapon at any point of time in the past. The order of revocation of licence

refers to five criminal cases registered against the petitioner and none was pending on the date of passing of the impugned orders, they all were either ended into acquittal or were closed. Also, in none of the criminal case there was use of weapon, which could reflect that continuance of arms license would be threat to the security of the public peace or for public safety. (11) Further, since 2008 no criminal case had been registered against the petitioner, merely because previously criminal case were registered against him, the provisions revoking the license under the Arms Act would not be attracted. Such provisions would be attracted in case the licensing authority finds that continuance of licence is detrimental to public peace or public security and safety. The Government Advocate also could not point out as to whether there was a threat to security of public peace or to the public safety.

(12) Therefore, the analogy which emerges from the discussion is that for cancellation of a fire arm licence there had to be a definite finding that the possession of fire arm with the licensee was endangering public peace and public safety. In the absence of such finding it could safely be presumed that the licensing authority had erred in cancelling the fire arm licence and mere pendency/registration of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of Arms Act are not sufficient ground for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17(3) of the Act.

(13) Under the above circumstances the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The orders impugned are quashed. However, quashing of the impugned orders would not result in revival of the petitioner's fire arm licence automatically. Since the license was revoked in the year 2004, now in changed scenario this Court deems fit to direct the petitioner to apply for arm licence afresh under the Arms Act, before the Licensing Authority, along with a certified copy of this judgment, if so desires, to have the arm licence. If any such application is filed before the licensing authority within a period of 30 days, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the licensing authority strictly in accordance with law but the licensing authority shall not refuse the arm licence on the ground of the impugned orders which have been quashed by this order. (14) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

E-copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.

(Milind Ramesh Phadke) Judge Pawar* ASHISH PAWAR 2022.08.02 15:47:38 +05'30'