MAHENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders in challenge before the Court are the orders passed in succession by authorities under the Arms Act canceling the arms license after a judgment of conviction was passed by a Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, against the petitioner for offence under Section 323, 325 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders canceling license does not set out anywhere, apart from stating an order of conviction that the license is required to be cancelled that mere is a threat to public peace in the manner that is contemplated under Section 17(3)(b). The learned counsel also refers to decisions of mis Court that hold that a mere observation of quarrelsome type of person (Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab and Others,1991 2 SLJ 1039) or an ex parte report of the Superintendent of Police (Labh Singh Chattar Singh, v. the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and Another, 1972 AIR(P&H) 122), could not be a ground for revocation of license. It has been held in the decision in Kakku Venkataramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1960 AIR(AP) 420, that once a person is granted a license and acquires a gun, he has a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution (as it then existed) to hold the property subject only to the restriction imposed by the Arms Act and Rules and that right cannot be interfered with arbitrarily or capriciously. In this case, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no report from the Superintendent of Police or any police official to say that there is a danger to the security of public peace or for public safety. The mere re-statement of a conviction for an alleged incident of the year 1983 cannot be a ground for revocation of a license. The learned counsel argues that even when the license was issued on 17.07.1989 and subsequently renewed in 1990 and 1994, a criminal case was still pending, but the license has been cancelled for the only reason that the criminal case had resulted in conviction subsequently. The learned counsel states that a revision against the judgment is still pending before this Court.

(3.) The conviction in a criminal case could be relevant if there is also an observation or a finding that on account of such conviction there is a danger of misuse of license by the petitioner or that he entertains any criminal intent or enmity against the persons, who had originally lodged the complaint that led to conviction. The counsel for the petitioner relies on a certificate given by the Sarpanch and Panches of the Village of Naraingarh to say that he had never misused the gun or acted rudely on any occasion by complaint by any resident of the village that imperiled the safety in the village.