RAGHURAJ SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner held a licence for a D. B. B. L. Gun. The licence was granted by the District Magistrate, Kanpur. It appears that a riot took place between the two factions in the home village of the petitioner as a result whereof two persons lost their lives. In a report lodged with the police the petitioner was named as one of the persons of the unlawful assembly and, as such, he was chal-laned under Section 147/148, 307, Indian Penal Code. This incident took place within the jurisdiction of District Magis-1 trate, Fatehpur, the first respondent. The District Magistrate, Fatehpur suspended the petitioner's licence and issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why his licence should not be revoked. The petitioner has challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Fatehpur suspending his licence.

(2.) THE principal ground of challenge is that the licence having been issued by the District Magistrate, Kanpur, the District Magistrate, Fatehpur had no jurisdiction to suspend it. According to the learned counsel, the licence could be suspended only by the District Magistrate, Kanpur. I see no merit in this contention. Under Section 17 of the Arms Act power has been given to the Licencing Authority to suspend or revoke a licence, if he thinks fit necessary for the security of public peace and for the public safety. The Licencing Authority has been defined in Section 2 (f) to mean an officer or authority competent to grant or renew licence under the rules framed under this Act and includes the Government. Every Dist. Magistrate under the Rules has the power to grant or renew a licence. Thus every Dist. Magistrate is a Licensing Authority for the purposes of Section 17 of the Arms Act. District Magistrate, Fatehpur was, therefore, a Licensing Authority competent to suspend or revoke the petitioner's licence even if the licence had been issued by the District Magistrate, Kanpur. It has to be borne in mind that the Arms Act is an All India Act and the Licence issued to the petitioner was valid for the whole of the Indian Territory. It could not be the intention of the Legislature that a person carrying arm under a licence granted by a particular Licencing Authority was1 immune from any action under Section 17 of the Act at any other place where he might choose to reside.

(3.) THE next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate has not recorded ariy reason as required by subsection (5} of Section 17 of the Act. The reasons are contained in the notice issued to the petitioner which clearly recites that the petitioner had taken part in a riot in his home village where two persons had been murdered and that he had already been challaned under Section 147/148/307, Indian Penal Code. It was also mentioned in the notice that the possession of the gun by the petitioner was not considered to be in public interest arid safety by the District Magistrate. It is not necessary that reasons should be recorded separately. In mv opinion, the requirements of law were fully complied with when the reasons were stated in the written notice sent to the petitioner.