IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2688 OF 2008 Khan Abdul Wahab Usman ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent Shri S. R. Chitnis i/b. Shri Imran M. Shaikh, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri B.R. Borulkar, P.P. For the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor. 2. Perused the record. The Petitioner is an Advocate of this Court and is aggrieved of an Order rejecting his application for grant of Arms Licence under section 3 of the Arms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as “the act”). -2- 3. After rejection of his application, he moved an appeal which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. Counter Affidavit has been filed by an Inspector of Police who is attached to Arms and Ammunitions Branch, Desk-X, in the Office of the Commissioner of Police. In her Counter Affidavit, it is submitted that the Petitioner had filed an application in Form III on 15th December 2005 as he apprehended danger to his life due to the nature of his work. Inquiry was conducted and during the inquiry it was found that the Petitioner had no threat to his life due to the nature of his job and he had never made a complaint of any threat to his life in any Police Station. Therefore, there was no substantive reason to grant arms license to the Petitioner. 4. On the last occasion when this case was taken up, we had directed that the details be furnished to this court of those persons who had been granted licence in the last three years. That list has been submitted to this Court. Before considering the rival arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to have a look at section of 14 of the Arms Act which deals with granting of arms licence to the applicants. -3- Section 14 of the Act is titled as “Refusal of licenses” which in our view is important. Section 14 lays down as under: “(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing authority shall refuse to grant - (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a license in any other case under Chapter II- (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe: (1)to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2)to be of unsound mind, or (3)to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. -4- (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a license to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.” 5. The Section having titled as “Refusal of licenses” would mean that as a general rule any person who wants to have licensed weapon should be granted licence. It becomes clear from mere perusal of section 14(1) (a)(b) of the Act, where it is laid down that the licensing authority shall refuse to grant a licence if conditions in Sub-sections (a), (b) of Section 14 (1) and sub-section (2 ) of Section 14 are satisfied. Therefore, if a person does not suffer from a disqualification under Section 14 (1)(a) (b) or 2 or 13 (2), the authority has to grant a licence. Subsection 14(1)(ii)of the Act further lays down, where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety, may refuse to grant such license. Therefore, the perusal of these sections would show that grant of licence to -5- a citizen is a rule and refusal to grant license is an exception and unless a citizen falls in exceptions mentioned in section 14 of the act, the State has no authority to refuse granting of license. The learned Public Prosecutor relies upon the manual guidelines 102 and 112 of guidelines framed. 6. We appreciate that State can frame guidelines under Section 14(2) of the Act, because this gives power to the State to refuse a license, where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety to refuse or grant a license. We understand that even after having a right to get a license to the weapon under the Arms Act, 1951 the State cannot be expected to give an arms licence to anybody who moves an Application before the State. It is the duty of the state to ensure that licence is not granted to a person who becomes a threat to the security of public peace or public safety. But, the norms which have been shown to us are not so elaborate, they merely say that the licence should not be granted to : 1 A person who does not have a good moral character. 2. He should not belong to a political party who promotes the philosophy of violence , and 3. He should also satisfy the need for the weapon . -6- The Public Prosecutor relies on the 3 requirements i.e. any applicant who applies for grant of licence should show the need for it. The Public Prosecutor has not been able to tell us any ground which could be sufficient for the concerned Police Officer to come to the conclusion that the applicant has no need of the weapon. In any case, that question is not important because self-preservation is a basic human right of every human being and every human being can be susceptible to the threats of life even if he is not a targeted person. There can be so many examples, when a common man can find himself in need to defend himself. Even on a roadside, a goonda can try to snatch a purse of a person. Even in the safe environment of his house, he can face burglary and we understand that these questions have been taken into consideration by the respondents while granting 348 licences in the last three years because most of the licences have been granted on the ground of self protection and only a few of them have been granted on the ground of threat to the life from anti-social elements. Some of the licenses have been granted because their father had a licence, then it was granted to the daughter or a son. Some of the licenses have been granted to the police officers who are already in possession of a service weapon. One of the licence has been granted to a -7- Resident Medical Officer and no need has been explained as to what was the need for a Medical Officer to have a gun, if it was only required to be given because of any threat to the life. We have examined a file pertaining to an Advocate who has been granted a licence. Basically he was granted a licence only because his father was in possession of the licence. The application by Advocate was initially made in Form II and the notes written by the concerned Police Officer was “Applicant is a lawyer by profession and he is intending to transfer arms of his father who is 75 years old.” The Senior Police Inspector, Zone 5 has recommended that the applicant has no threat, no substantive or justifiable reason, however on sentimental ground his request may be considered. After this application, he moved another application in Form III in which it was stated that he was an advocate by profession and he was dealing with matters pertaining to builders, therefore, he needed a gun. 7. We have perused the application, the applicant needs the licence only for personal security and safety. There is a specific column in the proforma which lays down the needs of licence. Against this column, the has -8- Petitioner stated “personal security and safety.” Therefore, he had never contended before the respondents that there was any threat to his life as is stated in the counter affidavit. The Petitioner did not at any point of time sought licence on the ground that there was any danger to his life. But he sought licence for personal security and safety. We do not find that there was any reason to reject the application of the petitioner, particularly, in view of the fact that for same reason licence had been granted to hundreds of person, in last three years. 8. Before concluding, we want to sum up the conclusion, so that there remains no ambiguity in future in granting the licences. We hold that though it is a right of every citizen to apply and get arms licence but it is within the power of the State Government to refuse the licence on any ground, if it falls within section 14(2). The State is free to frame more precise and clear guidelines under section 14(2), so that the chances of granting licence to the person who are threat to public peace or security are minimum. -9- 9. In view of the above, the order impugned is quashed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within two weeks from today. 10. With these observations, the Petition is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.)