Court No. - 21
Reserved on :17.5.2019 Delivered on: 30.5.2019
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 317 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ramakant Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 31st March, 2012 whereby the application for grant of firearm license to the petitioner in the Arms Act, 1959 has been rejected. The petitioner's appeal against the said order has also come to be rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 21.10.2013.
Briefly stated facts are that petitioner had already arm licenses of revolver applied for yet another arm license for self defence and security of his property and claims to be an Advocate practicing in District Court, Allahabad. In the application he submitted for grant of firearm license, vide column 10, he has declared that he is in possession of revolver and vide clause 13, he has declared that he wanted firearm for self security and security; of his property, vide clause 14, he has sought license for revolver, in clause 15, he has declared as having brick built house and in clause 16 he has stated that he belongs to a respected and reputed family.
The police report was called and police presented report in a format prescribed for in which a note was appended to the effect that applicant Rama Kant Dixit, resident of village Chak Tejau Dixit, P.O. Naini, District Allahabad is an Advocate by profession and against him no criminal case is registered . His overall behaviour is good and for the personal security and security of his property the grant of NPB Riffle is being recommended. However, on the point of consideration of genuineness of the claim, a fresh report was submitted by the police on 7.3.2012 on the points prescribed for under the directives of DIG Arms dated 26th November, 2011. In this report after making reference to the petitioner's identity and his property, there is a note appended vide clause 5, whether to grant license is to be recommended or not and the note appended declines recommendation on the ground that he was already having a revolver for the purpose of his personal and security and security of the property and according to police, license was being sought only to make it a matter of prestige and passion. Considering two reports of licensing authority did not find it to be fit case to grant another license to keep firearm. Same view has been reiterated by appellate authority while rejecting the appeal.
Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no bar under the Arms Act and the Rules to keep more than one firearm and if the petitioner needed more than one firearm at a time, respondent cannot refuse the same . It is further urged that the District Magistrate has passed very cryptic order and has not assigned any independent reason except placing reliance upon police report. The petitioner submits that the reason assigned under the order impugned under Subsection 3 of of Section 14 of the Arms Act is not sufficient and the opinion simply has been founded on the police report. He further contended that there were two police reports and the District Magistrate was not justified in accepting one and rejecting the other one.
Per contra, the argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel is that that petitioner was in possession of firearm and he has not disclosed any suitable reasons or circumstances for which he needed second firearm. It turns out only a case of prestige and passion on the part of the petitioner to seek another firearm license. It has been further contended that application seeking grant of license was made in the year 2010 and more than 8 years have passed since then and so there may be a case that circumstances have changed and the petitioner no more needed another firearms license. It has been argued that neither in writ petition nor, in the affidavit, any cogent and convincing material has been brought on record to atleast to form a prima faice opinion that the order passed by the District Magistrate suffers from perversity in the first instance and that there still circumstances exist which would call for reconsideration of the application at this stage.
He further submits that neither in the provisions nor, the rules framed under the Arms Act, 1959 provide that firearms license has to be necessarily given more especially, if the person is already in possession of firearm license. It has been further argued that firearm's license has granted to an individual to use firearm license himself and such firearm cannot be entrusted to any other person to be used. The argument therefore, is that the petitioner's present case deserves to be dismissed, however, it may be left open for him to apply for license afresh if otherwise permissible in law and for this purpose he has relied upon guidelines now framed by the State Government under the Government Order dated 18th October, 2018 which has been issued in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 38326 (M/B) of 2012 (Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. And Others) decided on 28.11.2017.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and having perused the records, what I find is that District Magistrate has considered two police reports while coming to the conclusion that petitioner did not deserve to have have another firearm's license. The police report in which earlier recommendation was made did not record any logic for making such recommendations although police report submitted on 10.2.2011 fully acknowledged the fact that the petitioner was already having firearm's license but in the 2nd report which has been submitted as per directives of the DIG, Arms Dated 26.11.2011, clearly states that petitioner since was already having arm's license keeping another firearm's license was only an issue of prestige. It has been noted down in the report that petitioner since was having already revolver, the same was sufficient for his personal security.
On pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner to show what are special circumstances that required him keep another firearm's license, he submits that one firearm he keeps with himself which is revolver while he moves out of the house and other he wants to be kept at the house to be used by his wife who looks after the property.
This court does not find this above reason sustainable in law. Firearm is given to individual to be used by him or her personally and cannot be entrusted to be used by another person. Both Sections 3 and 7 of the Arms Act, 1959 clearly provide that firearms can be carried by a person who has been authorized to have possession thereto. Sections 3 and 7 of the Arms Act is reproduced hereunder:
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: Provided that a person may, without himself holding a licence, carry any firearms 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 holder.
7 [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person, other than a person referred to in sub-section (3), shall acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, more than three firearms: Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than three at the commencement* of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983, may retain with him any three of such firearms and shall deposit, within ninety days from such commencement*, the remaining firearms with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 21, with a licensed dealer or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury referred to in that sub-section.
(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government using a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice.
(4) The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) (both inclusive) of section 21 shall apply in relation to any deposit of firearms under the proviso to sub-section (2) as they apply in relation to the deposit of any arm or ammunition under sub-section (1) of that section.
7. Prohibition of acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition.—No person shall— "(a) acquire, have in his possession or carry; or
(b) [use, manufacture], sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove; or
(c) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition unless he has been specially authorised by the Central Government in this behalf.”
(Emphasis supplied) A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, wife cannot be held to be in authorized possession of a firearm if she is not a firearms license holder or has not been duly authorized. The license is granted to an individual for his personal security or security of property which he wants to keep with himself and that is why a conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 3 and 7 would lead to only one conclusion that one who has been granted firearms license can keep fire arm. It is also worth noticing that firearms is sold to a person in his name if he is in possession of license and, therefore, husband who keeps the license for himself cannot keep the same with his wife at his residence to be used by his wife. The license is granted for personal security and security of the property both at the same time and, therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court logic that wife shall keep firearm to keep the property secured and for that husband needed license cannot be accepted. The wife can apply for firearm license separately and there is no such bar that she cannot apply for the same.
In view of above facts and circumstances of the case therefore, there are no special circumstance and reason explained before this Court by the petitioner which may permit the petitioner to keep another firearm licenses with him. The reason assigned in the order by the District Magistrate is neither perverse nor it is on extraneous consideration so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Sanjeev