SAFDAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The case projected in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner was shot dead by extremists on 10.05.1996 and the petitioner was also subjected to threats from different extremist organizations. There being serious threat to the life of the petitioner and to his other family members, he applied for an arms licence and the Additional District Magistrate, Udalguri, issued an arms licence to the petitioner, being No. 67/UDL and, accordingly, the petitioner acquired an N.P. BORE pistol, bearing No. RT-1101/84. The further case of the petitioner is that the All Assam Students Union ('AASU'), Tangla College unit, wanted the petitioner's son, Sri Sajid Khan, to contest the election slated to be held on 29.09.2015 for the post of General Secretary. However, Sajid Khan was not interested and, therefore, did not file his nomination. 21.09.2015 was the last date of filing nomination and Sajid Khan was summoned by the members of the AASU on that day, at 6-30 P.M., to Tangla Swahid Bhawan. Sensing trouble, the petitioner also accompanied his son to the said meeting and, in such meeting, they were threatened with dire consequences and, ultimately, the matter took an ugly turn. They, somehow, could leave the place, but, subsequently, an ejahar was lodged against the petitioner and his son by one Chintu Moni Chakraborty, a student of the college, alleging that they had vandalized the Tangla Swahid Bhawan and that they took out a pistol brought by them and prepared to shoot the leaders/workers of AASU, who were present there. Attempts made by the members of AASU could not calm them down and they attacked a number of persons and injured them. Based on the aforesaid ejahar, Tangla Police Station Case No. 115/2015, under Section 326/427/294/506/34 IPC, was registered. The petitioner and his son were arrested and, during investigation, the licensed pistol of the petitioner was also seized. Charge-sheet in the aforesaid case was submitted on 30.09.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an additional affidavit bringing on record the judgement dated 31.03.2016, passed in G.R. Case No. 980/2015, under Section 324/294/427/506/34 IPC, corresponding to Tangla Police Station Case No. 115/2015, whereby the petitioner and his son, Sajid Khan, were acquitted of the charges and set at liberty. At paragraph 14 of the judgement, it was recorded as follows:

(3.) While the aforesaid G.R. case was in trial stage, respondent No. 3 issued an order dated 18.11.2015 in exercise of its powers under Section 17(3)(b)and (d) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, the 'Arms Act'), whereby the arms licence issued to the petitioner was cancelled with immediate effect and the petitioner was directed to surrender his licence. The Officer-in-Charge of Tangla Police Station was also directed to confiscate the pistol and ammunitions with the direction to keep the same in safe custody. Perusal of the aforesaid order goes to show that the respondent No. 3 took note of (a) report of the Officer-in-Charge, Tangla Police Station, submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Udalguri, regarding misuse of the pistol by the petitioner, (b) a petition submitted by the President and Secretary of Udalguri District Students Union and (c) a photograph of Sajid Khan carrying the pistol. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 had concluded that the petitioner often threatened people with his licensed pistol and allowed his son to carry the pistol thereby violating the provisions of the Arms Act.