- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12-2-2007 passed by the District Magistrate suspending the fire-arm licence of the petitioner and directing him to deposit the same at the police station. Simultaneously, the petitioner was directed to show-cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. The District Magistrate in his order dated 12- 2-2007 on the basis of the report dated 7-2-2007 of the Superintendent of Police, the report dated 2-2-2007 of the Incharge Inspector, Kotwali and the Circle Officer dated 5-2-2007 felt satisfied that the action of the petitioner has endangered public safety on account of which it is not desirable to permit the licence to remain with the petitioner. The order refers to case crime No. 48 of 2007 under Sections 143, 149, 436, 336, I. P. C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, which was registered against the petitioner on 29-1-2007 in which it was alleged that a U. P. S. R. T. C. Bus was damaged and set to fire by putting kerosene oil and further the petitioner has fired from his licenced rifle terrorising the people. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order made following submissions : (1) That the suspension of petitioner's arm licence having not been made for any definite period, the said suspension is illegal. (2) Pending enquiry for cancellation of arm licence, there is no jurisdiction with the District Magistrate to suspend the arm licence. (3) Mere pendency of a criminal case is no ground to suspend the arm licence. Refuting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel contended that the suspension order passed by the District Magistrate is in accordance with Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act. He submits that the suspension has been ordered after recording satisfaction by the District Magistrate as contemplated under Section 17 (3 ). He further submits that in the facts of the present case suspension cannot be said to be for indefinite period. Learned Counsel for both the parties have placed reliance on various judgments of this Court which shall be referred to while considering the aforesaid submissions.
(3.) THE first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension order having not made for any definite period the same is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act. Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is as follows : "17 (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence - (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 the licence; or (c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression 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. ";