STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MANGAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANGAT Rai was granted a licence for a pistol in 1958. According to him, in 1966, he incurred the displeasure of the Station House Officer, Police Station. Beas, because he refused to help the latter in a number of activities which were not approved by Mangat Rai. This led to an open hostility between the two and the station House Officer manhandled not only Mangat Rai but his brother Prem Sagar as well. Mangat Rai actually filed a complaint against the Station House Officer under Sections 323 and 506. Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Chief Judicial magistrate Amritsar. Prem Sagar also lodged a complaint against the station House officer and the Assistant Sub-Inspector Police Station. Beas, under Section 343/323 Indian Penal Code, in the same Court. Subsequently on the report of this very Station House Officer, the District Magistrate, Amritsar, on 26th November, 1966 cancelled the licence of Mangat Rai under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959. In the said order, he stated: " * * * and whereas the cause shown by the licensee has been considered and it has been found out that though Shri Mangat Rai is a rich man, but he does not bear a good character. He is reported to be leader of desperados and is facing trial in case F. I. R. No. 162 dated 28-7-1966 under Section 506/148/149 Indian Penal Code. Police Station Jandiaria along with his gang. He is not a fit person to hold an arms licence. "

(2.) AGAINST this order, Mangat Rai went in appeal before the Appellant Authority and the same was dismissed on 2nd May, 1967. The Appellate Authority observed that it was not correct that Mangat Rai was involved in any criminal case as mentioned by the District Magistrate. It was Prem Sagar, his brother, and two others, who had in fact been challenged but subsequently acquitted. The Appellate authority then went on to say--"i have gone through the District Magistrate's file and find that the other allegations levelled against the appellant in the order under appeal have been found to be correct. " The said authority then referred to the complaints made by Mangat Rai and his brother Prem Sagar against the Station house Officer and on their basis stated that the conduct of Mangat Rai was not very desirable. According to it, if Mangat Rai and his brother felt aggrieved against the local police officials the proper remedy for them was to approach their senior officials and they should have had prosecuted them, if they had failed to secure relief from their superior officers. The Appellate Authority was of the opinion that the circumstances of the case indicated that it would be necessary for the security of the public peace to revoke the licence of Mangat Rai, because he was likely to abuse and misuse it, even though otherwise he was a very rich man.

(3.) THEREAFTER, Mangat Rai approached this Court by means of a writ petition challenging the legality of the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the appellate Authority. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. He held that the District magistrate had not given any finding that the licence was being cancelled, as it was necessary to do so for the security of the public peace or for public safety. He further held that the allegation that Mangat Rai was involved in a criminal case was incorrect as found by the Appellate Authority. According to the learned Judge, there was no material on the record to show that actually a case was pending against Mangat Rai and that he was a leader of the desperados and was facing trial along with his gang. The learned Judge also repelled the contention of the counsel for the State to the effect that even though the District Magistrate had not given the requisite finding as required by Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, but the same finding had been recorded by the Appellate Authority by observing that firstly it was the District Magistrate and not the Commissioner, who had to give this finding and secondly the Appellate Authority, namely, the Commissioner, had merely reproduced the language of the section without giving any reasons. It was, according to the learned Single Judge, incumbent on the Appellate Authority to have given some reasons on the basis of which he had arrived at the conclusion that the cancellation of the licence was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. On the basis of these findings, the learned Judge accepted the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders. Against this decision, the present appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab under Clause X of the letters Patent.