ABDUL SALEEM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order Annexure P-2 dated 7.12.2016 passed by District Magistrate Panna and the order of the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar Annexure P-3 dated 27.6.2017 directing to revoke his arm licence, inter alia contending that such an action is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind.

(2.) In the order passed by licensing authority, it is mentioned that recently a case is registered at Crime No. 225/2015 which is pending in the competent Court, however, revocation of the arm licence is necessary to maintain public peace and for public safety. Thus, in exercise of power under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act) the licence bearing No.08/pratan/panna/2010 dated 3.11.2010 is revoked with direction to deposit the firearm (gun). The Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar while dismissing the appeal, has referred the facts of the case from Para 1 to 7 and in concluding para 8 in reference to the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Panna opined that the arm licence may be mis-utilized affecting security of public peace and public safety. However, dismissing the appeal said, the licence has rightly been revoked by the licensing authority, but without adverting the arguments advanced and assigning the reasons.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the arm licence was granted in the year 2010. The alleged criminal cases referred from Sr. Nos. 1 to 6 in the impugned order dated 7.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) were prior to grant of arm licence, in which he is acquitted long back by the competent Court prior to grant of licence. Only the case mentioned at Sr. No. 7 of the impugned order of Crime No. 225/2015 was registered in 2015 falsely implicating him. In the said case on the basis of compromise the Court acquitted the accused on 6.9.2016 prior to passing the impugned order. In the said case misuse of arm licence or use of the gun with intent to affect the public at large was not alleged. Therefore, security of public peace or public safety is not in danger. In fact merely because the complainant is a journalist, who alleged against the petitioner, however, in the facts of this case, revocation of arm licence is arbitrary and contrary to law.