SHEO SHANKAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that under a valid licence, the petitioner had purchased a .22 bore arms and later on sold the same with the permission of the licensing authority and then made an application to amend the licence enabling the petitioner to purchase .315. bore arms. the licensing authority turned down the prayer with an observation in the favour of the petitioner to make an application for grant of a new licence entitling the petitioner to purchase . 315. bore arms.

(3.) A proviso to the rule, in accordance with the principles of interpretation, is not to be read independently but is to be read as a special power conferred contrary to the main body of the rule. A proviso in fact carves out an exception in favour of the beneficiary, be he a party or an officer/ authority. Sub -rule (2) of Rule 52 says that after a licence is issued in favour of a party, then within the period so fixed by the licensing authority the holder of licence shall purchase/acquire arms and the licence alongwith the arms shall be submitted to the licensing authority for its perusal. And such licensing authority shall be entitled to extend the period for acquiring and purchasing the arms for inspection by the said authority. A bare perusal of sub -rule (2) will make it clear that within a period fixed or extended the licencing conditions are to be observed by the licence - holder. The proviso appended to sub -rule (2) simply says that if the licence -holder wants to purchase or acquire some weapon or weapons of different description then he may make an application to that effect to the licensing authority. The proviso would come into operation only in a case where the party has not purchased or acquired the described arms within the period fixed or extended and wants to purchase some different weapon or weapons of different description and has already not purchased the licenced arms as provided under the licence itself. The proviso is to be read as an intergral part of the rule itself. If the petitioner has already purchased the particular arms in accordance with the licence conditions then the proviso would have no application. The sale of the arms by the petitioner, however, would not authorise the licensing authority to hold that it has jurisdiction to make any amendment in the licence. The petitioner who still is a licence -holder if wishes to purchase a .22 bore weapon then in accordance with the terms of the licence he can make such a purchase but if he wants to have a weapon of different description then he certainly has to make an application for grant of a new licence. I find no reason to issue any direction in this case.