LAWS(MAD)-2007-2-241

MAJOR K MATHEWS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On February 06, 2007
MAJOR K.MATHEWS Appellant
V/S
K.M.VARGHESE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the party-in-person praying for a direction against the first respondent, the State represented by Inspector of Police (Law and Order), R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai 600 093 to return immediately to the petitioner his 0. 32" Revolver, No. G-2199, manufactured by the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur, the five live catridges and the original Arms Licence No. 39/39/v2 to enable him to renew the Arms Licence due to expire on 31/12/2005.

(2.) EVEN though the petitioner has made various factual averments and assertions about various incidents, the crux of the case filed by the petitioner is that while he was serving in the Western War Filed during the India-Pakistan war of 1971 as a 'company commander', he was allotted a 12 Bore DBBL Gun through the Canteen Stores Department as per an Arms Licence dated 3/3/1972 for sports and self protection. Anticipating his protection from his enemies, he has also applied through Government for restoration of area validity Arms Licence No. 39/39/v2 to the whole of Indian Union and for the grant of licence for a 0. 32" Revolver as a second weapon and ultimately the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1246, dated 17/12/2002 has permitted the petitioner to possess the second weapon which is the subject matter of the writ petition and the weapon was procured as 0. 32" Revolver manufactured by the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur in 2004. He has made certain allegations against an Advocate in relation to some of his criminal cases filed by him against K. M. Varghese and K. M. Samuel about which he has moved Bar Council of India. He has also made certain allegations against the second respondent who was then the City Public Prosecutor in respect of some of his conducts relating to the criminal case filed by him against the said K. M. Varghese and K. M. Samuel in C. C. Nos. 1076 and 1077 of 1997 apart from C. C. No. 211 of 1997. He has chosen to state that there was some conspiracy between the second respondent and the said Advocate which is not actually relevant for the purpose of this case.

(3.) HOWEVER, the petitioner would state that due to the reason that in the subsequent criminal case in which the arms which is the subject matter of the writ petition is involved and there has been some connection in the said incident. He would state that it is due to the conspiracy of the said second respondent and the Advocate, on 21/5/2005 at 19. 45 hours when he was watering the plants maintained by him either side of the road in front of his house, one S. Manivannan of West K. K. Nagar with a small Pomeranian dog has picked up quarrel with him. Due to some commotion, he asked Manivannan to go away for which the said Manivannan used some unparliamentary words stating as to whether the road side is belonging to the petitioner and he caught hold of the petitioner's neck and pushed him down. On seeing that the said Manivannan again aiming to blow on his head, due to provocation, the petitioner has taken out the Revolver from his pant pocket and fired a single shot in self defence in which the said Manivannan was injured in his right forearm and due to the said incident, he is threatening the petitioner.