Can gun licence be cancelled over pending criminal case? High court warns against ‘mechanical’ orders

Justice Irshad Ali quashed the orders passed by the licensing authority stating that “impugned orders appear to have been passed mechanically”.

“Mere pendency of criminal proceedings, in the absence of any cogent material demonstrating threat to public peace or public safety or misuse of the licensed weapon, shall not by itself constitute a ground for revocation of the arms license,” the court stated.

‘Licence revoked’

• The petitioner was issued an arms licence bearing a Double-Barrel Breech-Loading (DBBL) gun number.
• The then gram pradhan of Paharpur village, which falls under the Banthara police station, moved a complaint dated July 19, 2001, against the petitioner to the Lucknow district magistrate.
• The district magistrate issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for suspending the said arms licence of DBBL gun on the premise of pendency of three criminal cases.
• The petitioner then replied to the notice and engaged a counsel.
• The counsel, however, failed to appear and consequently the petitioner’s arms licence was cancelled by an order dated December 22, 2003.
• Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Lucknow Division, which also got dismissed on November 25, 2008.
• The petitioner then filed a review application and the same was rejected on July 25, 2012.

‘Authority cannot cancel licence mechanically’

Advocates Upendra Singh and Vinay Misra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the licensing authority that granted the arms licence cannot cancel the same casually and mechanically.

It was submitted by the counsels that as per the Arms Act, 1959, the licence can be cancelled only if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is barred by any other law, for acquiring or carrying any arms or ammunition, or the holder is of unsound mind or unfit for a licence to be granted under the Act.

The counsels further urged that the law provided that if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence, only then can it be revoked and that in the present case, the authorities had failed to record their satisfaction to the said effect.

It was further highlighted that public peace and safety does not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order as public safety means safety of the public at large and that in the present case the authorities failed to consider this mandatory provision because mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of arms licence and even more so when there was no allegation that the fire arm which was registered on the licence of the petitioner was misused or that the condition of the licence had been violated.

Regarding the pending criminal cases, the counsels informed the court that in one of the cases the petitioner was enlarged on bail, in the second case, the petitioner was acquitted by the court and in the third one, the final report had already been filed.

‘Authority competent to revoke licence’

The standing counsel for the authorities submitted that if the licensing authority was satisfied that it was demanded by the security of public peace and safety to suspend or revoke the arms licence, then the authority was competent to do the same and it was also contended that on the basis of police report and due to pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner, the arms licence of the petitioner was duly cancelled.

‘Consider issue afresh’

The Allahabad High Court observed that the arms licence had been cancelled solely on account of pendency of criminal cases and that no independent satisfaction was recorded by the licensing authority that continuance of the arms licence with the petitioner was harmful to public peace or safety, nor there was any finding that the petitioner had misused the licensed weapon or violated any condition of the licence.

It was further stated by the court that even the appellate authority had failed to notice any essential ingredients required under the law and had mechanically affirmed the order passed by the licensing authority without recording any independent reasons.

As a consequence of the above observations, the Allahabad High Court directed that the matter be remitted to the licensing authority to “reconsider the issue afresh strictly in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and keeping in view the observations made by the court.”

The same was also asked to be considered expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.