JAYVANTBHAI TAPUBHAI PATGIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions have been directed against the order of respondent No.3 and 2 dated 5.12.2006 and 20.11.2004 respectively whereby the request of the petitioners to renew the licence under the Arms Act for possessing fire arms has been rejected.

(2.) I have heard Mr Jayesh Kotecha, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. I have also perused the record of the petition. It appears that initially the petitioners were given licence to possess fire arm to enable them to protect their crop in the fields. However, subsequently, the petitioners got involved in a criminal case where allegations against them are that they along with other accused of the said case i.e. C.R.No.I 73 of 2004 registered with Gadhda Police Station and committed offences which are made punishable under Sections 146,147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act. Keeping in view this fact, the authorities have refused to renew the licence expressing the apprehension that these weapons maybe used by the petitioners in commission of similar offences. It is the submission of Mr Kotecha, learned advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners have not used the weapons in question in committing the crime. The weapon has been used by original accused No.2 of the said case. However, the authorities have stated that since there is rivalry between two communities which have large families and they are headstrong persons, there is every possibility of repetition of the offence and hence it was not desirable to renew the licence. In my opinion, the apprehension expressed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 is well-founded, particularly when the petitioners and other accused have been released on bail by the competent court. If they are allowed to have fire arms in these circumstances, there is possibility that these weapons maybe used by them in commission of similar offences. Hence, I do not find anything illegal or wrong in the orders passed by respondent No.2 and 3.

(3.) Mr Kotecha has also submitted that no opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioners by the authorities. However, on going through the order of the appellate authority, it clearly appears that the petitioners had remained present and in person they presented written reply also. In view of the same, there is no reason for me to believe that no personal hearing has been granted.