Anwar Khan vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2251 P&H

CWP No.22639 of 2020 (O&M)                                       -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CWP No.22639 of 2020 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision.30.03.2022


Anwar Khan                                                        ...Petitioner

                                       Vs

State of Haryana and others                                     ...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present: Ms. Samridhi Sarin, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG, Haryana.

-.-

JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) By way of instant writ petition, petitioner seeks setting aside of

order dated 12.03.2018 passed by Commissioner of Police, Faridabad

whereby arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal

preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by the

Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad vide order dated 07.12.2018.

In brief the facts are that the petitioner is an arms licence holder

of NPB 32 Bore Pistol No.RP-109648 and 12 Bore D.B.B.L Gun No.40494

under Licence No.54/FBD/JAN/01 & Renewal No.280-R/JCP-FBD/2010,

which was valid till 22.01.2016. An FIR No.132 dated 06.04.2014 came to

be registered against the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC at

Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad, in which he stood convicted by the court

of Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 21.08.2015 and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Against the

aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before this

High Court wherein vide order dated 08.03.2017, sentence of the petitioner

1 of 5

has been suspended. However, the petitioner received a show cause notice

dated 24.08.2017 as to why his arms licence be not cancelled with

immediate effect. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice

but vide order dated 12.03.2018, respondent No.3 cancelled the arms

licence of the petitioner solely on the basis of conviction of the petitioner

under the afore-mentioned FIR and appeal preferred against the same has

also been dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend

that the cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner solely on the ground of

his conviction under FIR No.132 dated 06.04.2014 is not sustainable. It is

argued that in the appeal preferred against the order of cancellation of his

arms licence, respondent No.3 filed a reply stating therein that arms licence

of the petitioner has been cancelled, in view of the communication received

from the Chief Minister, Haryana dated 31.08.2018 announcing immediate

suspension of facilities like social pensions, scholarships and arms licences

in respect of every person against whom charges are framed by the Court for

a sexual crime against a woman or child. The said announcement was made

on 31.08.2018 whereas the impugned order has been passed by respondent

No.3 on 12.03.2018. It is further argued that an arms licence can only be

suspended or revoked in terms of provisions contained under Section 17(3)

of the Arms Act and the impugned orders are passed without assigning any

reasons that the weapons possessed by the petitioner were used by the

petitioner in commission of any offence or the petitioner by his conduct or

by omission had posed any threat to the security of the public peace or

public safety. In support of his arguments, he relies upon a judgment

rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.10816 of 1998

2 of 5

titled as Mahender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on

04.07.2011 wherein it has been held that conviction in a criminal case could

be relevant if there is also an observation or a finding that on account of

such conviction there is a danger of misuse of licence by the petitioner,

which could pose a threat to the security of public peace or for the public

safety and without a definite finding to said effect as contemplated under

Section 17(3)(b), there could be no suspension or revocation of the licence.

It is further argued that delay of nine months in submitting the application

for renewal of the licence was caused only on account of the fact that

licence was valid upto 22.01.2016 and during that period the petitioner was

incarcerated as had been convicted vide judgment dated 21.08.2015 and he

came out after 08.03.2017 when his sentence was suspended by this High

Court in criminal appeal preferred by him.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG, Haryana who is present in Court,

accepts notice for the respondents and supports the impugned orders by

contending that arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled primarily

on two grounds; (i) there was a delay of 9 months in moving application for

renewal of the licence and (ii) petitioner stood convicted for offence of

dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. It is further contended that the

impugned orders have been passed after due deliberation of all facts and

circumstances and therefore, prays for dismissal of the instant petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused

the paper book. Section 17(3) of the Arms Act deals with the provisions of

suspension or revocation of an arms licence, which is reproduced as under:-

"17.(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing

3 of 5

suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence--

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 17(3)

would reveal that an arms licence can be suspended or revoked primarily in

following circumstances:-

(a) if the holder of the licence is disqualified from acquiring/possessing or carrying any arms by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force; or is of unsound mind or unfit for any reason for a licence under this Act;

(b) for the security of public peace or for public safety;

(c) obtained licence by suppressing material information or on the basis of wrong information;

(d) conditions of licence contravened or the holder of the licence failed to comply with notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence.

Admittedly, there is no finding given in the impugned orders

that the fire arms owned by the petitioner were ever used or misused in the

criminal case registered against him or there is any threat extended by the

petitioner to the public peace or public safety on the strength of said fire

arms or the petitioner is disqualified by any provisions of the Arms Act or

4 of 5

of any law for the time being in force from acquiring/possessing/carrying

any firearm. Conviction in a criminal case may be a matter for

consideration by the authorities regarding threat to the security of public

peace or public safety but cannot be a sole ground while ordering

cancellation of arms licence, without rendering a finding qua threat to such

peace or safety in the manner enunciated under Section 17(3)(b) of the

Arms Act. The delay of nine months in submitting the application for

renewal of the licence was only on account of the fact that the licence was

valid till 22.01.2016 and petitioner remained incarcerated as he stood

convicted in the aforesaid criminal case on 21.08.2015 and his sentence was

suspended by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2017. Therefore, in any

eventuality, he could apply for renewal of the licence after 08.03.2017.

In view of the aforesaid finding, the instant petition is allowed

and the impugned orders suffering from the perversity as noted above are

set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3, Commissioner of

Police, Faridabad for fresh consideration in view of the provisions of

Section 17(3) of the Arms Act and decide the same as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of

certified copy of this Court.

Needless to say, that the petitioner shall be afforded an

opportunity of hearing before taking a decision by respondent No.3.

                                               (JAISHREE THAKUR)
March 30, 2022                                       JUDGE
Pankaj*
                    Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
                    Whether reportable               Yes/No




                                      5 of 5