SHARMA, J. - (1.) WHETHER arms licence can be revoked/suspended under Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of Arms Act 1959 (for short 1959 Act') if criminal case for a major or capital offence is registered against licencee? is the core question emerged for our consideration in the instant matter.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated January 31, 2000 of the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition of the appellant was dismissed and orders dated January 6, 1998 and October 26, 1998 respectively, passed by the District Magistrate, Bharatpur and Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur revoking the arms licence of the appellant were maintained. The appellant was granted arms licence bearing No. 38/78 SDM/bharatpur/ 279/78 for 30. 06 Bore Rifle in the year 1978. Upon complaint of one Jagdish Prasad, the District Magistrate, Bharatpur issued show cause notice to the appellant on December 11, 1997 for cancellation of arms licence on the ground that various criminal cases under Sections 379, 323, 302, 34, 147, 441, 341 and 452 of Indian Penal Code were pending against the appellant. The appellant submitted reply to the notice on December 29, 1997 stating therein that in most of the cases the appellant was acquitted and pending cases could not have been made basis to cancel the arms licence. The District Magistrate vide order dated January 6, 1998 cancelled the arms licence of the appellant under Section 17 (3) (b) of 1959 Act. The Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur dismissed the appeal preferred against the said order of District Magistrate. Learned Single Judge thereafter was approached but the writ petition was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. Mr. Praveen Balwada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vociferously canvassed that all the impugned orders are against the scheme of 1959 Act. Since the appellant stood acquitted in all the criminal cases, there was no justification for the District Magistrate to cancel the arms licence of the appellant. It is further urged that the appellant has constitutional right to possess arms licence for his safety. Learned counsel placed reliance on Khem Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 2005 (2) 907), Labh Singh vs. Divnl. Commr. Ambala (AIR 1972 122), Rati Lal Bhogilal vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1966 244) and Beni Chand vs. District Magistrate, Banda (AIR 1953 476 ). Per contra, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned Dy. Government Advocate, Mr. Vijay Jangid learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned orders. Unlike the second amendment to the American Constitution, there is no fundamental right to possess arms in our Constitution and jurisprudence. It is manifest from the relevant provisions that under 1959 Act there is legal bar for having any possession or carrying a firearms unless the very licence is first secured in accordance with the provisions of 1959 Act. Reference in this connection may instructively be made to the relevant parts of Sections 3, 13 and 14 of 1959 Act which provide thus:-      " 3. Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition.- (1) No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder: xx xx xx 13. Grant of licences. (1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed. (2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time. (2a) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2) shall subject to the other provisions of this chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same: xx xx xx 14. Refusal of licences.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in S. 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant- (a) a licence under S. 3, S. 4 or S. 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition, (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,- (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe- (1) to be 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 (2) to be of unsound mind; or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (iii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. xx xx xx
(3.) FULL Bench of Patna High Court had occasion to consider these provisions in Kapildeo Singh vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 122) and it was indicated as under:-      " Under sub-sec. (3) the actual conviction or acquittal on the criminal charge does not have an inflexible or conclusive impact on the exercise of the discretion by the licensing authority thereunder. Even if the holder of the licence may be acquitted by narrowly giving the benefit of doubt, the licensing authority could, perhaps, still take the view that along with other factors such a person may not be fit for holding an arms licence. Equally, conviction on any and every criminal charge would not provide an inflexible rule that the licensing authority must revoke the same and it may well be justified in allowing the continuance of the said licence. Conviction and acquittal are issues of relevance under sub-sec. (7) for the criminal Court and not conclusive for the licensing authority who is governed by the provisions of sub-sec. (3) " The Full Bench ultimately held that the pendency of the criminal case for major or capital offence may be an adequate reason for suspension or revocation of licence under Clause (a) of sub-section 3 of Section 17 of the Act. Turning to the facts of the instant case we find that the District Magistrate, Bharatpur prior to issue show cause notice to the appellant called for the report from SP Bharatpur. It appears that after recording satisfaction that the arms licence issued to the appellant could have been misused, the order of cancelling the licence was passed. We also notice that in cases bearing Nos. 450/1997, 451/1997 there were allegations against the appellant of misusing the arms licence. ;