CWP No.6636 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6636 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 Isham Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Monish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana PERMOD KOHLI, J. Petitioner is holding an Armed Licence No.3660/DM/KL. A show cause notice dated 01.02.2008 was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation why the licence issued to him be not cancelled in view of registration of criminal case against him under Sections 148, 149, 324, 326, 120-B IPC. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice stating therein that he has been falsely implicated in the case due to political pressure because his brother is Sarpanch of the village. He also informed the District Magistrate that he had been released on anticipatory bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Licensing Authority after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 17.03.2008 and suspended the licence of the petitioner with immediate effect asking him to deposit his weapon in the nearby police station or seller of the arms and guns and final -1- CWP No.6636 of 2010 decision will be taken after the Court’s decision. Petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No.17388 of 2008 before this Court, same was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an execution appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner accordingly preferred an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2009. Both the orders dated 17.03.2008 & 07.08.2009 (Annexure P/3 and P/4) are under challenge in the present writ petition. Only plea raised in the present writ petition is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal case due to political rivalry of the village, his brother being a Sarpanch of the village. It has also been stated that he has not used the weapon which was secured only for his personal security. In the reply filed, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Indri, has specifically mentioned that during the course of investigation it has come on record that the gun of the petitioner was used in the commission of the offence and as such the petitioner was arrested by the police under Sections 326/120-B IPC though the petitioner is on bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sub-Section 3 of Section 17 of the Indian Arms Act deals with the suspension/revocation of the licence and reads as under “17(3 ) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence. -2- CWP No.6636 of 2010 (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is 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 is of unsound mind or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke licence; or (c) if the licence was obtained by the suspension of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-Section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence.” Under the aforesaid provisions the licensing authority is empowered to suspend/revoke a licence by order in writing for such period as it thinks fit. Clause (b) of sub-section 3 of Section 17 clearly provides that the licensing authority can suspend/revoke a licence for the security of the public peace or for public safety. In the criminal case registered against the petitioner there are allegations -3- CWP No.6636 of 2010 of his licensed arm being used in the commission of offence and in the impugned order the licensing authority has specifically mentioned that it is not justified to have a licensed arm by such a person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in case of Bibhuti Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2004(1) RCR (Criminal)-168 and another judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Mahendra Singh Bhaduria Vs. State of M.P. and others reported as 2009(5) RCR (Civil)-431 In both the cases it has been observed that mere pendency of the criminal case is no ground for suspension or revocation of armed licence. In the judgment of Allahabad High Court it was specific case of the petitioner that he never misused his gun and it was accordingly observed that his case did not fall in any of the grounds specified under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act. The facts of the present case are however clearly distinguishable. The licensing authority while suspending the licence has held that such person should not be allowed to keep the arm. The investigating officer has also stated in the affidavit that the arm possessed by the petitioner was used in the commission of offence. This case clearly falls within the purview of Section 17(3)(b) of the Indian Arms Act. Petitioner was put to notice and even afforded opportunity of personal hearing. On consideration of all the aspects, the licensing authority suspended the licence of the petitioner. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that no period is specified in the order of suspension and thus, the order suspending the licence without specifying period -4- CWP No.6636 of 2010 is bad in law. Section 17(3) empowers the licensing authority to suspend the licence for such period as it thinks fit. In the impugned order it is specifically mentioned that the licence is suspended till the final outcome of the court case though no period is mentioned. However there is no uncertainty. The suspension has co-relation with the period of trial and depends upon the outcome of the trial. Thus, the order cannot be said to be in violation of Section 17(3) of the Indian Arms Act. I do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) 15.09.2010 JUDGE vcgarg Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes. -5-