LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-228

SHAFAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On December 01, 2005
SHAFAT KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge has made this reference doubting the correctness of the judgment of learned Single Judge in Satish Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2003 (1) JIC 33 (Alld.), wherein it had been held that while passing the order of suspension of the licence of arms under the Arms Act, 1959, hereinafter called the ''Act', the authority cannot direct the licence holder to deposit the arm with the police station or arms dealer. This petition has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 23rd April, 2003 issued under Section 17 (3) of The Act, by which while suspending the firearms licence with immediate effect, as it was necessary for the security of public peace and public safety, the petitioner was called upon to show cause within 15 days why the firearms licence may not be cancelled and a further direction was issued to the petitioner to deposit the firearm in the Police Station. At the time when this petition was being heard learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such a direction could not be issued in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Satish Chandra (supra), in which it was observed :-

(2.) The learned Judge was prima facie of the opinion that the aforesaid proposition of law was not correct and, therefore, referred the following question of law for consideration by a larger Bench:

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy, we consider it proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3(1) of the Act provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 13 of the Act deals with the grant of the licences while Section 17 deals with variation, suspension and revocation of licence. Sub-sections 3 and 10 of Section 17 and Section 21 (1) which are relevant for the purposes of the controversy involved in this petition are quoted below:-