R K KESAVAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to quash an order cancelling a licence issued to him under the Arms Act, and prays for return of the D.B.B.L. gun seized from him. On 22-11-1985, it is said that three policemen went to the house of petitioner, and demanded to see his licence. Instead of verifying the licence, it is alleged that the gun was seized. Upon this, petitioner made Ext. Pl and P2 complaints to the Additional District Magistrate, and Superintendent of Police, respectively. These were followed by Ext. P3 representation to the Minister for Revenue. By Ext. P4, the District Magistrate issued a notice to petitioner, to show cause why the licence issued to him should not be cancelled. Petitioner showed cause by Ext. P5, stating that the gun was needed for self protection. After considering Ext. P5, by order dated 16-7-1986 (not exhibited) the licence was cancelled. Petitioner appealed against that order, to no avail, and by Ext. P9 the appeal was rejected.

(2.) Petitioner would contend that the cancellation of licence is illegal, and that seizure of the gun was not preceded by a show cause, as should have been. Counsel for petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1973 SC 2288 ) to contend that possession of a fire arm by itself is no offence.

(3.) The files were placed before me. It is seen that the District Magistrate called for reports from the Superintendent of Police, from the Sub Inspector of Police, Pudussery, Circle Inspector of Police, Palghat (Rural) and the Tahsildars, Alathur and Chittur. He considered their reports, as also a petition filed by the divorced wife of petitioner and his three daughters. It was on consideration of these and the cause shown by petitioner, that the District Magistrate decided to cancel the licence.