V K THOMAS Vs. REVENUE BOARD MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal profession has more than casual connection with the arms and the governing laws. A great Judge, Lord Atkin, spoke about law speaking in the same voice even amidst the clash of arms. (See Liversedge v. Anderson, (1942) A. C. 206). That was on the academic aspect. Even on its physical features, the legal profession had much to contribute. It was Lord Armstrong, shortly after his sojourn as a solicitor, that gave much of concentration in the perfection of the shooting rifle. The British army used it in more wars than one. The recognition of his contribution is reflected in the patenting of the rifle after his name - Armstrong's rifles. (See A History of Our Own Times, from the Diamond Jubilee 1897 to the Association of Edward VII by Justin Mc Carthi, Pages 216 to 220.) Little did Lord Armstrong realise that in years to come, that that little weapon would be wielded by anti social elements as well for subverting the Rule of Law, - the illicit distillers the poppy barons, the plotting Poachers' the sneaky smugglers and the dreadful terrorists. The abuses of arms licence, appear to be on the increase. The present is an illustrative case.

(2.) The petitioner, who describes himself as an agriculturist, and a resident in Kizhakkencherry village in Alathur Taluk of Palghat District was armed with an arms licence, granted in the year 1980. The area of its operation was Palghat D strict; and the duration, upto the end of the year 1982. There were complaints that he had abused the licence and the weapon - an S.B.B.L. Gun with facility for purchase of 100 catridges at a time and 300 catridges in an year.

(3.) The petitioner was involved in a murder case, convicted by the Sessions Court, but ultimately acquitted by the High Court. He was also involved in a rioting case. The Supreritendent of Police, Palghat, moved the statutory authority, the District Magistrate. for the cancellation of the licence. By order dated 15-10-1982. the licence was cancelled. The order was appealed against before the Board of Revenue. The matter was argued before that authority by counsel. The Board by its order dated 16-10-1985 declined to interfere with the order of the Magistrate. The validity of these orders is challenged.