SBCWP NO.4045/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4045/2007. Gore Lal Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur & Anr. DATE OF ORDER:- 20/2/2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Shiv Lal Verma for the petitioner. REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:- Aggrieved by the impugned-orders dated 6/8/1997 (Ann.1) and 26/6/1998 (Ann.2) passed by the learned Collector and District Magistrate Dholpur and learned Divisional Commissioner Jaipur rejecting the application of the petitioner and thereafter dismissing the appeal filed against the order dt.6/8/97, petitioner has preferred this writ petition questioning non-renewal of his arms licence. 2) Petitioner was holding the Arm Licence bearing No.26/86 of Gun 12 Bore No.12210. A criminal case bearing F.I.R. No.105/1992 was registered against him at P.S. Badi, Distt.Dholpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307 I.P.C. Consequent upon registration of the said F.I.R., police seized his above gun. Thereafter, petitioner SBCWP NO.4045/07. 2 was acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 28/11/1996. He moved an application before the learned Collector & District Magistrate Dholpur for renewal of the arm license. The said application was rejected vide impugned order dated 6/8/1997 (Ann.1). Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur but the appeal too was rejected vide impugned order dated 26/6/1998 (Ann.2). Hence, this writ petition. 3) I have heard Shri Shiv Lal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 4) Shri Shiv Lal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 6/8/1997 rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of arm license and further order of rejection of appeal preferred against the said order dated 6/8/1997 vide order dated 26/6/1998, are not in conformity with the law as petitioner was honourably acquitted in Sessions Case No.25/1993 by the trial court but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by any of the courts below. 5) Impugned orders were therefore contrary to the provision of Section 17 of the Arms Act and are also against the principles of natural justice. He in this connection relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble SBCWP NO.4045/07. 3 Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation V/s. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. : J.T. 1998 (7) SC 243. 6) Shri Shiv Lal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that most of the cases referred to in the impugned-order were stale and the petitioner has been acquitted in them. 7) In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner has become a threat to the peace and tranquility of the society so as to justify denial of renewal of his arms license. 8) I have given my earnest consideration to the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and scrutinised the material on record. 9) On perusal of the order dated 6/8/1997, it reveals that learned Collector & District Magistrate Dholpur rejected the application of the petitioner exercising powers conferred under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act on the report obtained from Superintendent of Police Dholpur. It would be evident from the order of the Collector that Criminal Case No.560/1994 for offence under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC ended in acquittal of the petitioner because of compromise with the aggrieved party. He was acquitted in Criminal Case No.105/1992 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. 10) Crux of the matter is that in making the SBCWP NO.4045/07. 4 aforesaid argument the petitioner does not dispute the fact regarding lodgment of such criminal cases reference to which was made by the learned District Magistrate in his order. He merely strives to explain them away by stating that in which he has been acquitted. 11) Coming now to the argument that in the cases referred to in the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, the petitioner was acquitted and therefore this could not afford any basis to the District Magistrate to arrive at the conclusion that in case licence of the petitioner is renewed, it would have posed any threat to the security of the public peace or for public safety in the meaning of section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. It is argued that the learned Magistrate has wrongly held that renewal of arm license would have posed any threat to the security of the public peace or for public safety while exercising powers conferred upon him under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. 12) Merely on the basis of fact that petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal cases in which he was involved, the objective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate while not renewing the arm license on the ground that it might pose threat to the security of the public peace or for public safety, cannot be said to be unfounded. A Full Bench SBCWP NO.4045/07. 5 of the Patna High Court in Kapildeo Singh V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. : AIR 1987 Patna 122 had the occasion to consider the true scope of section 17(3) of the Act in the context of this question and in para No.12 of which it was held as under:- “xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx x that under sub-section (3) the actual conviction or acquittal on the criminal charge does not have an inflexible or conclusive impact on the exercise of the discretion by the licensing authority thereunder. Even if the holder of the licence may be acquitted by narrowly giving the benefit of doubt, the licensing authority could, perhaps, still take the view that along with other factors such a person may not be fit for holding an arms licence. Equally, conviction on any and every criminal charge would not provide an inflexible rule that the licensing authority must revoke the same and it may well be justified in allowing the continuance of the said licence. As is noticed hereafter, conviction and acquittal are issues of relevance under sub-section (7) for the criminal Court and not conclusive for the licensing authority who is governed by the provisions of sub- section (3).” 13) Calcutta High Court in Sardar Chand Singh V/s. Commissioner, Burdwan Division and Another : AIR 1958 Calcutta 420 also had the occasion to consider a similar controversy and in para 7 of which it was held as under:- “xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx SBCWP NO.4045/07. 6 The Divisional Commissioner has given reasons fairly and fully. The reason is that the appellant was involved in several litigations of a serious nature and that a person who is so involved in that way could not be considered to be a suitable person for possessing a revolver. There, again, the reasons are there. The question whether such reasons are right or wrong is not for this Court to examine under Art.226 mala fide. I cannot help expressing the view that the reasons appear to me to be good. The law as I understand it is not that a person can only be refused a licence for a revolver if in such a case he has been convicted by a criminal court. Even if he is not convicted or even if he is acquitted, it may very well be a ground to refuse him a gun licence as not being a safe person to have such fire arms. Even if the Magistrate's reasons were far too brief the Commissioner's reasons are fuller and as the Commissioner is the appellate authority under the Rules, the requirement of reasons for the refusal is in these circumstances amply satisfied.” 14) Critical analysis of the law as discussed above, would indicate that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases in which he was involved, the District Magistrate was yet entitled to take into consideration not only the number of cases but also the nature of allegations against him together with the report received from the S.P. Dholpur, the learned Collector and District Magistrate, Dholpur rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for renewal of license while exercising powers conferred on it under Section 17(3)(b) of the Act looking to the fact that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for SBCWP NO.4045/07. 7 public safety to revoke the licence. If he has arrived at the satisfaction that it was necessary to not to renew the licence granted to the petitioner, this court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute such satisfaction recorded by the learned Magistrate unless reasons recorded are so perverse, obnoxious and outrageous that no person of reasonable prudent could reach such satisfaction or the decision was actuated by malafides or based on extraneous considerations. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (MOMAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil