GAURAV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Arms Act 1959 was enacted to regulate the acquisition, possession or carrying of fire-arms and ammunition and to provide punishment for contravention of the statutory provisions. The statement of objects and reasons appended to the Act indicates that the rigours of the Arms Act, 1878 and rules thereunder continue to make it difficult for law abiding citizens to possess firearms for self-defence whereas terrorists, dacoit-gangs and other anti-social or anti-national elements were using not only civilian weapons but also bombs, hand-grenades, bren-guns, sten-guns, 303 bore service rifles and revolvers of military type, for perpetrating heinous crimes against society and the State, therefore, it was only to codify the law relating to the possession of arms that the Act was enacted. It is also well settled law that right to life is the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In case, a citizen feels that he requires fire-arm for his personal security, then it is bounden duty of the authority concerned to consider and decide the application in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. The petitioner's application for grant of fire-arm licence was rejected by the District Magistrate respondent No. 2 by order dated 4.12.2006 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to bring on record any material indicating that the petitioner has any actual threat to his life and the petitioner is a short tampered person and gets provoked instantly and hence the need of the petitioner for grant of fire-arm licence was not genuine. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner Bareilly Region, Bareilly, which was numbered as Appeal No. 44/2006-07 under Section 18 was also dismissed by respondent No. 3 by an order dated 5.3.2008 finding no ground to interfere with the order of District Magistrate. This order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders inter alia on the grounds that the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority have overlooked the police report dated 4.11.2006 as well as the recommendation of the SDM, Bilaspur dated 7.11.2006 submitted in favour of the petitioner for granting fire-arm license and thus committed manifest error in law.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.