Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hem Singh Khinchi vs State & Ors on 5 January, 2017
Bench: Govind Mathur, G.R. Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1031 / 2013
Hem Singh Khinchi S/o. Shri Brhamanand Singh Khinchi, aged
about 71 years, R/o. Sector No.12, Hanumangarh Junction,
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Government
of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The District Collector/Magistrate, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh Junction,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
Mr. Vinod Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI Judgment 05/01/2017 (2 of 5) [SAW-1031/2013] This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6318/2012. By the order impugned, the learned Single Bench affirmed the order dated 04.1.2012 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh suspending fire-arm Licence No.12/03 DM HMH/D.D.B.L. No.13186460 due to pendency of a criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 365, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC read with Section 4/25 Arms Act.
The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that as per provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 the Licencing Authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. Suspension of Arms Licence can also be made if that is found necessary for safety of the public peace and public safety. The Collector, Hanumangarh under the order impugned has not considered this aspect of the matter in his order.
Per contra, as per learned Additional Advocate General lodging of a criminal case itself is sufficient to have a conclusion that the appellant-petitioner is not a person fit to be continued with a firm-arm.
We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.
(3 of 5) [SAW-1031/2013] A Division Bench of this Court in Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005(2) Crl.L.R. [Raj.] 907 while examining the same issue held as under :-
"4. In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be appropriate to extract material portion of Sec.17 of the Arms Act, 1959 relevant for the purpose as follows :-
"(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time was may be specified in the notice.
(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,-
"(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or "
(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence (4 of 5) [SAW-1031/2013] under sub-sec. (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-sec.(3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in public interest to furnish such statement."
5. From the reading of the provision it is manifest that the licensing authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the licence. A licence can be revoked u/s.17(3)(b) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace (5 of 5) [SAW-1031/2013] or public safety. In absence of any such finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed."
In the instant matter too, the order of the District Magistrate does not indicate as to how the suspension of arms licence was necessary to secure public peace, as such, the order is apparently bad.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The order passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh dated 04.1.2002 is also quashed. In view of the fact that we have already quashed order passed by the original authority, the order passed by the appellate authority too stands quashed.
(G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Sanjay