SUDHANSU KANTA ACHARYYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner Maharaj Kumar Sudhansu Kanta Acharyya has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings taken against the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi for cancellation of arms licences under the provisions of Section 18, Arms Act (Act 11 of 1878).

(2.) FROM the affidavit of the petitioner it appears that on 30-1-1953 the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi sent the following notice: Whereas at the time when a dacoity was committed at 10 P. M. on 11-11-1952 in the house of one Suresh Chandra Chakravarty, on the Kanke Road, Ranchi, which is close to your residence the 'Sunrise' you were in possession of eleven fire-arms, taut you did not make a show of them though there were cries and alarms raised by the victims and that it took place in the early hours of night when you and your family members and servants were not asleep and a torch was flashed at the place of occurrence from the upper storey of your residence occupied by you personally. That you are very friendly with one H, N, Aikat Jigga of Circular Road, Ranchi, who has been suspected in a burglary case vide Kotwali P. S. Case no. 28 (11) under Section 457/380, I. P. C. That both you and H. N. Aikat exercise great influence over the local Adibasis some of whom are suspected to have participated in the com-mission of the the aforesaid dacoity. Under the circumstances you are called upon to show cause by. 23-2-1953 why your arms licences should not be cancelled. The case of the petitioner is that for the last twenty years he has been holding licences for fire-arms issued by the State Government of Bengal. The father of the petitioner, the late Maharaja Sashi Kant Acharya of Mymensingh, had played a notable part in public life and had been exempted from taking licence under the Arms Act. The petitioner and his two brothers have inherited the Mymensingh estate of which the total income was about 30 lacs per year. The petitioner has alleged in his affidavit that he has no friendship with Mr. H. N. Aikat, but, on the contrary, there has been litigation, both civil and criminal, between the two families. As regards the occurrence which took place on the night of 11-11-4952 the case of the petitioner is that he had no knowledge that a dacoity was being committed in the house of Suresh Chandra Chakarvarty. So far as he was aware the occurrence was more in the nature of theft than professional dacoity and there was no warrant or justification for the show or use of fire-arms. The third ground mentioned in the notice is that the petitioner and Mr. H. N. Aikat exercised great influence over the local Adibasis "some of whom are suspected to have participated in the commission of the dacoity". The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the allegation is too vague. The petitioner has however stated that he has no influence over the Adibasis though he is respected in the locality.

(3.) FOR the reasons we have expressed we think that this rule should be made absolute and a writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi quashing the proceeding started against the petitioner for cancellation of the licenses under Section 18, Arms Act. The application is accordingly allowed.