Civil Writ Petition No.5772 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5772 of 2011 Date of Decision:28.04.2011 Darshan Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Amaninder Preet, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner-Darshan Singh son of Jit Singh was having a valid arms license bearing No.91/PS Sadar/KDP/DM-FDK of 315 Bore Rifle bearing No.AB- 003420. It was valid upto 19th March 2005. The petitioner claimed that since he remained busy in his agricultural pursuits on his farms in Faridkot as well as in Rajasthan, so, he forgot to renew his arm license in time. As soon as, he came to know about the expiry of period of his arms license, then he immediately applied for the renewal of the indicated license, vide application dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) to the competent authority. A show cause notice(Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioner in this respect. The District Magistrate, Faridkot, also sought the report of the SSP, Faridkot, by way of letter dated 06.04.2010 (Annexure P-3). In response thereof, the petitioner explained the circumstances in this regard vide reply(Annexure P-4). The SSP, Faridkot, made his report (Annexure P-5), but still the District Magistrate did not renew the license of the Civil Writ Petition No.5772 of 2011 2 petitioner by means of order dated 13.05.2010(Annexure P-6). The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, by virtue of impugned order dated 02.02.2011(Annexure P-7). 2. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-6 and P-7), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 4. At the very outset, it may be added here that in somewhat similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Mohinder Pal, J.) in Criminal Revision No.378 of 2003 titled as Zile Singh Versus State of Haryana, decided on 04.03.2010, has observed in this context, as under:- “However, before parting with this judgment, I feel constrained to observe that India's domestic policy on small arms and light weapons, which is regulated under the Arms Act (1959) and the Arms Rules (1962) is basically the extension of the policy under the Arms Act and the Arms Rules of 1878 passed during the British Regime. The sole purpose of this Act was to prohibit Indians to acquire firearms so as to neutralize any possible threat of a fresh armed mutiny from Indian Freedom Fighters. The intelligentsia of that time had condemned the Arms Act of 1878 as Blackest. Unfortunately, till now, after more than sixty two years of independence, instead of making the Arms Act/Arm Rules citizen friendly, the policy makers in the Government kept on making policies in such a way so as to make it toughest for law abiding citizens to legally acquire and keep the arms. In fact, this myopic approach has not only rendered civilians helpless for their personal defence but also indirectly made the job of criminals – anti social elements – terrorists easy. The free flow of illegal firearms and their use against the civilians, Military/Law Enforcement Agencies/State Police remained unchecked. The possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny. One of the myopic approach under the Arms Act of 1959 and the Arms Rules of 1962 which has made it toughest for the citizens to maintain arms is to get the arms licences renewed from the Civil Writ Petition No.5772 of 2011 3 competent authority after every three years. On the one hand the policy of compulsorily getting the arms licences renewed after the prescribed period mentioned in the licence for three years, whichever is earlier, puts the holders of licences to hardship and inconvenience as they have to comply with a number of formalities before applying for renewal of licences in advance of the expiry dates of licences and then to wait for the renewal of licences, on the other hand, it wastes a lot of time of the agencies handling the renewal of licences. The evidence, surveys and other data suggest that armed citizens are very responsible in using arms to defend themselves. Only the criminals violate rules and do not respect the imaginary boundaries of law. Despite India's stringent regulation of arms transfers, exports and imports, India still faces the problem of weapons which are smuggled into the country by various anti-national groups. The markings and types of weapons confiscated/recovered from various criminals indicate that these are brought into India through illicit channels from outside the country. A great amount of crude “country made” weapons are also found to be produced clandestinely in India. In fact, acquiring country made weapons has become very easy for the criminals. All small arms manufactured in India are uniquely marked by stamping to indicate the registration number, manufacturer/factory of origin and the year of manufacture. This applies to arms that are produced for private/personal use and those which are used by armed forces, police or paramilitary forces. Allotment of these registration numbers for the armed forces/police and paramilitary forces is done centrally and a record is maintained of these registration numbers along with the indent. This provides a double check on the records. A record of each and every weapon manufactured by the factory is kept along with the information on the concerned dealer. Arms which do not bear specified identification marks may not be sold or transferred. Further, any person found in possession of a weapon without identification marks would be presumed to have removed/obliterated the marks unless proved otherwise. Besides, all ordinance factories maintain detailed records of small arms manufactured by them. Private firms and persons authorized to manufacture firearms against licences issued under the Arms Rules of 1962 are required to maintain a Manufacturing Register which records information, including serial numbers and date, month and year of manufacture. A designated Inspecting Officer inspects these registers regularly. A record of arms sold in the civilian market is also required to be kept by each arms dealer. Civil Writ Petition No.5772 of 2011 4 These records are regularly checked by the concerned State/District authorities. Still further, every Police Station maintains a register of the licence holders in its jurisdiction, with the name of the licencee, description of the weapon and its purpose. This list is updated from time to time. Any police officer or other officer specially empowered on this behalf by the Central Government can demand the production of licence from the person carrying firearm or ammunition. The licencee is required to inform the licencing authorities of the change of the place of residence. Keeping in view these facts and without dilating any further on the issue, I am of the view that the requirement of getting the licences renewed after every three years needs to be done away with. The law should be such as may repose confidence in the armed citizens that they are presumed to be responsible in using arms to defend themselves. One such measure in this regard would be to amend the Arms Act, 1959/the Arms Rules of 1962 suitably to prescribe that arms licences are required to be renewed after every ten years. I would suggest that the concerned department of the Union Government may take necessary steps in this regard. The Registry is directed to hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the Union of India in this Court for onward transmission to the concerned quarters and necessary action.” 5. In the instant case, as is evident from the record that the petitioner obtained the indicated arm license, which was valid upto 19.03.2005, but he forgot to renew the same. As indicated here-in-above, the explanation put-forth by the petitioner in his reply(Annexure P-4) for filing the application(Annexure P-1) for the renewal of his arm license, is genuine, natural and plausible. The District Magistrate and the appellate authority negatived his claim, mainly on the ground that his renewal was not recommended by the SSP. 6. Here, to my mind, the District Magistrate and the appellate authority slipped into a deep legal error in this relevant connection. The perusal of the report of the SSP, Faridkot, dated 03.05.2010(Annexure P-5) would reveal that “the petitioner does not take part in any anti-social party. He takes the land on contract in Rajasthan and cultivates it. His arm license remained lying in the box. Civil Writ Petition No.5772 of 2011 5 During this period, he has not misused his arm, but he is an irresponsible person”. 7. Meaning thereby, in a way, the SSP Faridkot, has reiterated that the petitioner is a peace loving citizen. His arm remained lying in the box and during this period, he has not misused the arm. The mere fact that some(duly explained) delay occurred on his part for applying the renewal of the arm license, ipso facto is not a ground to deny the renewal of his license. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders cannot legally be sustained in the eyes of law, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned orders(Annexures P-6 and P-7) are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate to consider the case of renewal of the indicated arms license afresh and to renew the same, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled for its renewal(except delay), in view of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. April 28, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE