VIJENDRA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & MAGISTRATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order Dt. 12.4.10 of Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s. 18 of Arms Act against the order Dt. 9.12.09 of District Magistrate, Hanumangarh suspending the arms license of the petitioner and refusing to renew it, stands rejected. The petitioner was granted arms license by the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 12.2.99, for a rifle of 35 -Bore. The license was renewed time to time which was valid upto 7.2.09. On 24.3.09, the petitioner applied for renewal of the license by submitting an application in prescribed form along with an affidavit disclosing the fact that no criminal case is pending against him and that he will not misuse the arms. On the application being filed by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh requisitioned the report from the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh, regarding the character of the petitioner. In the report submitted, SHO, Police Station, Bhirani mentioned that one criminal case being No. 125 Dt. 24.9.91 for offences u/S. 147, 148, 149, 323, IPC and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner wherein the compromise was arrived at between the parties on 19.8.92. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Hanumargarh recommended not to renew the license issued in favour of the petitioner. The District Magistrate keeping in view the report submitted by Superintendent of Police rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for the renewal of the license vide order Dt. 9.12.09. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order also stands rejected by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 1991 and he was acquitted of the charges by the Court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment Dt. 19.8.92. Learned counsel submitted that the license was issued in the year 1999 and no offence was committed by the petitioner thereafter and therefore, the Licensing Authority was not justified in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for the renewal of arms license. Learned counsel submitted that merely a registration of a criminal case against a license holder cannot be a ground for refusing, the renewal. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of "State & Ors. v. Sahab Ram,, 2011 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 230.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.