Decided on February 02,2017

Pawan Ashok Bora Appellant
State of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondents


S.B. Shukre, J. - (1.) (Oral) - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
(2.) Petitioner is an advocate by profession and practising law at Ahmednagar District Court. He owns property and enjoys good reputation in the society. But, he feels insecure, especially, in the present scenario where the crime against person and property has increased and is always on the rise and, therefore, thinks it necessary that for his own protection as well as his family members, he should possess a licenced firearm, which is not prohibited by law. Therefore, the petitioner made an attempt to obtain a licence for possessing and carrying an unprohibited firearm by applying under sections 3 and 4 of the Arms Act, 1959, to the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar and, submitted an application in that regard. The District Magistrate called for the report of the police. The report was received by the District Magistrate. The report stated that since the petitioner did not receive any threat on his life, the police would not make any recommendation for issuance of the firearm licence. Learned District Magistrate, Ahmednagar, accepted the report and rejected the application for grant of licence.
(3.) Petitioner challenged this order before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik. The Divisional Commissioner remitted the matter back to the learned District Magistrate for considering it afresh in accordance with law. Hearing was granted to the petitioner by the learned District Magistrate but, once again, by order passed on 8th January, 2016, the learned District Magistrate rejected the application. The order was carried in appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner and, he too, by order passed on 27th April, 2016, reiterated the finding recorded by the learned District Magistrate. This finding was to the effect that as no threat on the life of petitioner was received, the petitioner did not require the firearm for his protection. Being aggrieved by the same, now, the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.