JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Anees Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner, Sri Ram Naresh Trivedi has been granted an arms licence being Licence No.AB-793289.The aforesaid arms licence of the petitioner has been suspended under order of the Additional Distict Magistrate, City, Ghaziabad dated 31st Janaury,2005 under Section 17 of the Arms Act.
3. On behalf of the petitioner if is contended that the suspension of the arms licence of the petitioner during the pendency of enquiry in the criminal case, is legally not justified in view of the Five Judges' Judgment of this Court in the case of Rana Praptap Singh v. State of U.P. as also in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh v. District Magistrate, Sharaswati and Anr. reported in 2001 (2) J.I.C. 304. It is further contended that the order of the Additional District Magistrate, City, Ghaziabad dated 31st Janaury, 2005, in so far as it directs that the licence of the petitioner shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings under Section 30 of the Arms Act, is legally not justified inasmuch as the proceedings under Section 17 of the Arms Act are independent, of the proceedings which may be taken under Section 30 of the Arms Act.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct. Section 17 of the Arms Act confers a power upon the Licensing Authority to cancel the arms licence in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder, and against such order an appeal has been passed under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner. So far as Section 30 of the Arms Act is concerned, it provides for imposition of punishment for contravention of the conditions of the licence or the rules, which are in the nature of criminal liability.
6. In the opinion of the Court, the proceedings under Section 17 of the Arms Act are wholly independent of the proceedings, which may be taken under Section 30 of the Arms Act against the licensee. The suspension of the arms licence till the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 30 of the Arms Act as such is not justified. It would be worthwhile to refer to Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, which confers a power upon the Court of law when convicting the holder of an arms licence for an offence under the Act to suspend or revoke the licence meaning thereby that the Court of law (having jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Arms Act) has independent power to direct the revocation/suspension of the arms licence of the Licensee irrespective of the power of the District Magistrate under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. Accordingly part of the order of the Additional District Magistrate in so far as it directs that the arms licence of the petitioner shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the proceedings initiated under Section 30 of the Arms Act is legally not sustainable and is hereby quashed.
7. It is also directed that the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad (Licensing Authority) shall complete the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 17 of the Arms Licence preferably within one month, after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner by means of a reasoned speaking order.
8. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is partly allowed. The District Magistrate is directed to complete the proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the Arms Act, irrespective of the proceedings under Section 30 of the Arms Act, by means a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law preferably within one month from the date a certified copy of. this order is filed before the District Magistrate.