HAKIM NAWAB ALI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore arising out of the suspension of a gun licence held by one Hakim S. Nawab Ali. The licence was suspended by the. City Magistrate of Cawnpore and thereafter Hakim S. Nawab Ali was prosecuted and convicted under Section 19(f), Arms Act, because a number of cartridges were found in his possession. He had handed over his gun and licence when the latter was suspended. The Sessions Judge has recommended that the conviction be quashed.

(2.) The question raised in the reference is whether the City Magistrate had power to suspend the licence. Section 18(a), Arms Act provides that a licence may be cancelled or suspended by the officer by whom it was granted, Or by any authority to which he may be subordinate, or by any Magistrate of a district, or Commissioner of Police in a Presidency town, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the holder of such licence may be, when, for reasons to be recorded in writing, such officer, authority, Magistrate or Commissioner deems it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel or suspend such licence. The Sessions Judge has assumed that the licence in this case was granted by the District Magistrate, and nothing has been said against this assumption." If the licence was not granted by the City Magistrate, the City Magistrate had no power to cancel or suspend the licence unless the expression "any Magistrate of a district" applies to him. The Magistrate concerned has understood this expression to mean any Magistrate having jurisdiction within a district and he has referred to Rule 175, U.P. Arms Rules and Orders as indicating that a Sub-Divisional Magistrate has the power. The City Magistrate of Cawnpore, he adds, exercises the powers of a Sub- Divisional Magistrate in the City.

(3.) Rule 175 certainly implies that a Sub-Divisional Magistrate may cancel or suspend a licence, but there is more than one reason for holding that the provision in Rule 175 could not confer power on a Sub-Divisional Magistrate not empowered by Section 18(a). Rule 175 merely requires a District Magistrate or a Sub- Divisional Magistrate who cancels or suspends a licence, to state in writing the reasons for his order and provides for an appeal against the order. Rule 175 does not give any support to the view that any Magistrate, even a third class Magistrate, has the power. Such a provision referring only to the power of cancellation or suspension by a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate would not have been made, if it had been thought that a Magistrate of inferior jurisdiction had the power, that is, leaving such inferior Magistrate to exercise the power unfettered by the condition imposed by this rule in the case of a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The rule, therefore, so far from supporting the Magistrate's view, provides an argument against it.