HARDEO NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Hardeo Narayan Singh, held a licence for a D.B.B.L. gun granted to him by the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar, being licence No. 131 of 1961.

(2.) The officer-in-charge of Brahampur police station instituted a case against one Awadhesh Prasad Singh on various charges in which one of the allegations was that he was seen carrying the gun belonging to the petitioner. Awadhesh Prasad Singh had no written authority or consent of the petitioner Hardeo Narayan Singh to carry his gun, nor was he keeping the same as a retainer. Awadhesh Prasad Singh was, therefore, prosecuted for an offence under S.25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). During the pendency of the investigation of the said case, the said officer-in-charge made a report to the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar, for cancellation of the licence of the gun belonging to this petitioner and, the learned Magistrate, on receipt of the report, by order dated the 23rd Nov., 1974, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The order of the Magistrate has been annexed with the petition as Annexure 1. The petitioner moved an appeal before the District Magistrate of Bhojpur at Arrah against the aforesaid order, but the learned District Magistrate as well on hearing the petitioner dismissed the appeal vide Annexure 2. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another application before the District Magistrate, by way of an application for review of the earlier order of dismissal of the appeal which also was rejected vide Annexure 3. Having lost at every stage, the petitioner filed this application under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, with a prayer to quash the aforementioned orders contained in all the three annexures, namely, Annexures 1, 2 and 3.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly said that on reading the orders impugned, it appears that the sole ground, which weighed with the authorities concerned, that is, the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the District Magistrate in cancelling the licence was that Awadhesh Prasad Singh had no authority to keep the gun of this petitioner. Learned Advocate has argued that the entire case has been misunderstood by the respondents, that is, the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the District Magistrate. They could not apply their minds to the police report, finally submitted in this case. It is not a case of possessing a gun by Awadhesh Prasad Singh without a licence or holding it as a retainer under the Act. Since the petitioner had suddenly felt the call of nature, he had temporarily asked Awadhesh Prasad Singh to hold the gun, and, it was during this period that the officer-in-charge who per chance happened to arrive, caught hold of Awadhesh Prasad Singh and instituted a case against him under S.25(1)(a) of the Act for keeping the gun without a licence and the further allegation is that some cartridges were also found in possession of said Awadhesh Prasad Singh. It has been urged that in the aforesaid case instituted against Awadhesh Prasad Singh, a final form was submitted by the Police stating the case as mistake of facts. Final report has been accepted by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate at Buxar and the case has been dropped. A certified copy of the final form submitted by the police has been produced in support of the contention raised above. A copy of the order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate dated the 2nd April, 1975, is Annexure 4 to the application, by which the final form submitted by the police has been accepted.