KAPILDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Would the registration and pendency of a criminal case for a major or capital offence justify the suspension or revocation of a licence under Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act? - is the significant question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass. Kapildeo Singh petitioner was the holder of a licence for D.B.B.L. gun granted by District Magistrate of Sitamarhi. On the 14th of November, 1978 a case under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act was registered at Police Station, Dumra against the petitioner and others. Therein inter alia, allegation had been made that the petitioner Kapildeo Singh armed with his gun was a member of the unlawful assembly and in the transaction gunshots were fired at Tribeni Baitha, though the actual fatal injuries were attributed to the gun of Mangru Singh, co-accused. Later the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, took cognizance and committed the petitioner and his co-accused to the Court of Session where the trial is still pending.

(3.) During the pendency of the aforesaid case respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the gun licence in his favour be not cancelled. In response thereto the petitioner showed cause which did not find favour with the District Magistrate who cancelled the petitioner's licence by order dated the 15th of September, 1981. On appeal the learned Commissioner set aside that order and remanded the same primarily on the ground that the District Magistrate had not complied with sub-section (5) of Section 17 by recording the reasons in writing for the cancellation. On remand respondent No. 3 reconsidered the matter and after recording reasons again revoked the petitioner's licence vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition, dated the 22nd April 1985. On appeal, respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, upheld the order of the District Magistrate on the ground that the order was now well reasoned and there was more than enough cause to cancel the licence of the petitioner.