CHANNABASAPPA VEERANAGOUDA MALLUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum. The petitioner applied for licence to possess a revolver to protect his life and property. He has stated that he owns agricultural lands and he is also a primary school teacher by profession and lives at Chivatagundi village in Bailhongal Taluk. In his application he did not specify the bore or calibre of the weapon which he intended to possess in respect of which he sought the licence. The application is required to be made in form No. 1 prescribed under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules).

(2.) That application was processedby the Deputy Commissioner through the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police submitted a report stating that the lands owned by the petitioner did not require protection of a weapon and that the profession practised by the petitioner did not also call for protection of his person by possessing a weapon of the description given in his application. Recording those reasons, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application. On appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner distinguished certain case law cited before him and rejected the appeal concurring with the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner-District Magistrate.

(3.) In this Court the learned Counselappearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that under Sec. 14 of the Act the licence cannot be refused except for the reasons stated under that section. I do not think the argument is well founded. Sec. 14 of the Act reads as follows :