JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.10.2004 passed by appellate authority by which the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the District Magistrate and directed the petitioner to deposit his arm. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 21.6.2001 by which the license of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate. Against the order passed by District Magistrate canceling the arm license, petitioner filed an appeal No. 77 of 2001. The appellate authority remanded the matter to the District Magistrate that fresh decision be taken on merits after calling for report from the police regarding criminal history of the petitioner. The appellate authority further directed that petitioner shall deposit his license by 30.10.2004.
3. The counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that during suspension of the arm license, the arm cannot be directed to be deposited. His submission is that arm can be directed to be deposited only when license has been cancelled. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (46) ACC 248 Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. and Anr.
4. Learned Standing Counsel Sri N. P. Pandey refuting the submission of counsel for the petitioner contended that after suspension of the arm licence the same can be directed to be deposited by the District Magistrate and no illegality has been committed by the appellate authority in directing the petitioner to deposit the arm. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra (supra) does not lay down any such ratio and the judgment having been given on concession is not a precedent.
5. I have considered the submissions of counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. The first submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that during suspension of arm license, arm cannot be directed to be deposited and the arm can be directed to be deposited only when the arm licence has been cancelled. For considering the above submission it is relevant to consider the scheme of the Arms Act, 1959.
7. Section 3 of the arms Act provides that 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. Section 3 subsection (1) is quoted below :-
"3. (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 there under;
Provided that a person may, without himself holding a licence, carry any firearm or ammunition in the presence, or under the written authority, of the holder of the licence for repair or for renewal of the licence or for use by such older."
8. The above provision reveals that for possession or carrying any firearm a person has to hold licence. The relevant words in the Section is "he holds in this behalf". The word "holds" denotes having the licence in present time. A person whose licence has been suspended cannot be said to have holding the licence. For example a licence has been granted to a person which could not be renewed after a particular date, can it be said that person still holds licence although it has not been renewed. The answer obviously is "No". Similarly a person whose licence has been suspended cannot be said to hold the licence. The requirement of Section 3 Sub-section (1) is that a person shall not have in his possession any fire arm unless he holds in this behalf a licence. A person whose licence has been suspended cannot have in his possession any fire arm. When a person cannot have in his possession firearm necessarily the authorities have to be conceded a jurisdiction to direct the arm to be deposited. The above scheme is further revealed and made explicit in Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 21 specifically provides that a person whose licence has been suspended, his possession of the arm and ammunition ceases to be lawful and he has to deposit the arm either with the Officer in-charge of the nearest Police Station or subject to other condition as may be prescribed with a licence dealer.
9. Section 21 Sub-section (1) is quoted below :-
"21. (1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, in consequence of the expiration of the duration of a licence or of the suspension or revocation of a licence or by the issue of a notification under Section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful, shall without unnecessary delay deposit the same either with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer or where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armory. "
10. The above provision of Section 21 and Section 3 makes it specific that a person whose licence has been suspended can be directed to deposit the arm thus the first submission of the counsel for the petitioner have no substance.
11. The judgment which has been relied by counsel for the petitioner observes in paragraph-2:
12. From perusal of paragraph-2 of the judgment it is clear that learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption that the proposition of law is undisputed that the Additional District Magistrate has no authority to get the firearms deposited unless the license has been cancelled. The above judgment do not lay down any provision of law that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to get the firearm deposited on suspension of arm licence. The proposition noted in the judgment is on the assumption that the said provision is undisputed i.e. on the concession of the parties. In the present case the learned Standing Counsel has refuted the submission. Moreover the provision of Section 21 was not placed before the learned Judge who decided the above case hence the said judgment cannot be held a precedent laying down any such proposition as contended by the counsel for the petitioner.
13. The learned Standing Counsel, Shri N.P. Pandey further submitted that the arm can be deposited even during suspension of the license in view of provision of Section 17(10) of the Arms Act which specifically provides:
"On the suspension or revocation of a license under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the license to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation."
14. There is specific provision under Sections 17(10) that on the suspension or revocation of license, the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the license to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked. The surrender of the license itself implies that petitioner has also to surrender the arm, when the license is surrendered, there cannot be any purpose for permitting the arm to continue with the holder.
15. In the object of surrendering the license , it is implicit that arm be also surrendered. A person whose arm license has been surrendered cannot use his arm and looking to the object and purpose of the Arms Act it cannot be said that arm cannot be asked to be surrendered when the license has been suspended.
16. The appellate authority has partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the District Magistrate for consideration. I do not find any error in the direction of the appellate authority directing petitioner to deposit the arm by 30.10.2004. No good grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned order. However, it is observed that District Magistrate in pursuance of the remand order dated 19.10.2004 shall expeditiously dispose of the matter and pass final order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. As observed by appellate authority the District Magistrate shall also ensure that arm of the petitioner is deposited as directed by the appellate authority.
17. The counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the time of deposit of arm be extended since the time allowed by the appellate authority for depositing the arm has already expired. The petitioner is allowed two weeks further time to deposit the arm as directed by the appellate authority.
18. Subject to the observations as made above, writ petition is dismissed summarily.