E. Nath, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the suspension of the petitioner's licence of a single barrel gun under Section 17 of the INdian Arms Act has been challenged.
(2.) IT appears that in respect of an offence which took place on 30-1-1983, the applicant Anand Prakash was prosecuted for an offence under section 307/325/336 IPC for having caused injuries by firing at Krishna Prasad and others. In this connection the gun of the petitioner was seized by the police. The petitioner also filed the cross FIR against Krishna Prasad and others for offence under section 147/148/149/324 IPC ; both the cases are pending. In the meantime the police instituted a proceeding under section 107/116 CrPC between the two parties ; that proceedings case was dropped. In the course of the criminal trial against the petitioner under Section 307/325/336 IPC the seized gun was ordered to be released in his favour. Subsequently on the basis of a report of Superintendent of police, the District Magistrate issued a notice on 30-7-83 to the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence for the gun may not be suspended. After the petitioner had shown cause, the District Magistrate, in his capacity of licensing authority, suspended the licence. In the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act against the order of suspension the appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner of Faizabad Division observed that although the proceedings between the parties under section 107/116 CrPC had abated and there were cross criminal cases between the two parties and the dispute between them was of a personal nature, but still experience showed that matters which were initially of a personal nature, finally became matter of public importance affecting peace and security of the public at large. On this basis he dismissed the appeal.
(3.) THE question arising in this writ petition is a very short one and both the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the petition itself may be disposed of on merits. It appears to me that the matter regarding an interim order basically raises those very questions which concern the merits of the writ petition and therefore I proceed to decide the writ petition on merits. Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act authorises the licensing authority to suspend a licence if the authority deems it necessary for security of public peace or for public safety. Disturbance of peace between the individuals is to be distinguished from disturbance of public peace or public safety. The very fact that the incident which led to the 2 cross cases, took place on 30-1-1983 in consequence of which proceedings under Section 107/116 CrPC were instituted and subsequently dropped, considered in a proper perspective, should have pursuaded the licensing authority to appreciate that there was no further apprehension of breach of peace. Apart from that an apprehension that according to experience, matters of personal controversy, initially, escalated into events affecting peace and security of the public at large subsequently, is only a conjecture ; the impugned orders, do not contain any material to support the impression that the petitioner was likely to disturb public peace or public safety. In these circumstances, there was no valid basis for suspending the licence of the petitioner and the petition should succeed.;