AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.831 OF 2009 Vikas Ranchhod Shukla ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.H. Joshi for the petitioner. Ms. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner has challenged letter dated 9/3/2009 sent by the Collector, Thane, which is annexed as Exhibit-C to the petition. Admittedly, the petitioner is a lawyer. The petitioner has no antecedents. The petitioner is practicing in the District & Sessions Court at Thane for the last 15 years. The petitioner's father is also a lawyer and is practicing in the District & Sessions Court at Thane for the last 50 years. It appears, therefore, that the petitioner AJN 2 comes from a reputed family. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has an arms licence from the year 1999 which is renewed upto 2010. The petitioner possesses a .25 bore imported pistol, which is a licenced arm. According to the petitioner pursuant to letter dated 9/3/2009 written by the Additional Collector, Thane to the Police Inspector, Boisar Police Station informing him that since the Election Commission of India has declared programme of Parliamentary Elections, arms licence holders in his jurisdiction should be directed to surrender arms at the police station, respondent 2 i.e. Senior Inspector of Police, Boisar Police Station directed the petitioner on telephone to deposit his firearm at the police station. On 21/3/2009, the petitioner deposited his firearm. On the same day, the petitioner addressed representation to respondents 3 and 4 stating therein that he is a law abiding citizen; that no offence is registered against him till date and calling upon respondent 4 to let him know under which provisions of law, Notification dated 18/3/2009 is issued. The petitioner received reply dated 24/3/2009 informing him that in AJN 3 order that the Parliamentary Elections should take place without hindrance, peace and public order is to be maintained in the area and, therefore, in view of Items 1, 2 and 3 cited in the reference and in the light of letter at Item 3 cited in the reference of reply dated 24/3/2009, the petitioner has been directed to deposit the firearm. Items 1 and 2 refer to Section 144 of the Code and Section 37 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Item 3 refers to letter of the Election Commissioner of India dated 8/1/2007. 3. We have perused letter dated 8/1/2007 issued by the Election Commission of India. Clauses 4.10 and 4.11 of the said letter are important and read as under: “4.10. Immediately after the announcement of elections, District Magistrates shall make a detailed and individual review and assessment (in accordance with the prevalent State laws) of all licence holders so that licensed arms in those cases where they consider it essential are impounded in order to ensure maintenance of law and order so essential for ensuring free and fair elections. These arms should be deposited with the district authorities. Among cases which may need to be reviewed are the following: (a) Arms licenses for persons released on bail. AJN 4 (b) Arms licenses of persons having a history of criminal offences, and (c) Arms licenses of persons previously involved in rioting at any time but especially during the election period. (The above categories are only illustrative and not exhaustive). 4.11. After such review, all such licence- holders who are identified, shall be directed to deposit their arms with the District Administration during the period of one week from the last date for withdrawal of candidatures.” 4. The above clauses, therefore, make it clear that there has to be a detailed and individual review and assessment of all licence holders so that where it is necessary, licenced arms could be impounded in order to ensure maintenance of law and order for ensuring free and fair elections. Admittedly, there is no review of the petitioner's case. In fact, no Screening Committee was in place at the relevant time. Upon query made by the court, on instructions from Mr. R.N. Parikh, PSI attached to Boisar Police Station, learned A.P.P. has informed us that no Screening Committee was constituted by the respondents prior to calling upon the petitioner to AJN 5 deposit the firearm. A copy of letter dated 24/3/2009 addressed by the Collector, Thane, to the A.P.P., High Court, Bombay, is taken on record and marked “X”. The letter states that the Screening Committee has now been established. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a lawyer; that the petitioner has no antecedents; that in response to the telephone call, he had personally gone and deposited the firearm and that the Screening Committee was not even in existence when the telephone call was made and the petitioner's case was not reviewed and assessed prior to asking him to deposit the firearm, in our opinion, the direction issued by the respondents to the petitioner asking him to deposit the firearm needs to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. We direct the respondents to return the firearm to the petitioner. We, however, make it clear that this shall not preclude the respondents from taking any action in accordance with law, if they so desire in connection with the firearm possessed by the petitioner. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. AJN 6 [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]