Name of person in FIR no ground to cancel arms licence, says HC

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, June 22

In a significant judgment the way arms licences are recommended for cancellation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the name of a person in an FIR is not a ground to proceed in the matter. Besides, a specific finding is required to be recorded “to the effect that the licence needs to be revoked for public peace and safety”.

The ruling by Justice Avneesh Jhingan came on a petition for quashing orders cancelling the arms licence of a person and subsequent dismissal of his appeal. The Bench was told that the arms licence the petitioner was holding was recommended to be suspended by the SP on the ground that he was involved in a case of causing hurt, criminal intimidation and other offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 427 and 506 of the IPC.

Justice Jhingan’s Bench was also told that the petitioner’s specific stand before the licensing authority was that there were no allegations of the firearm’s misuse and the FIR was a result of a “party faction”. Taking up the matter, Justice Jhingan observed Section 17 of the Arms Act dealt with the suspension or revocation of licence. A sub-section stipulated the eventualities for suspending or revoking the licence.

The licence under Sub-Section 4 could be revoked on the licence holder’s plea. Sub-Section (5) made it obligatory for the licensing authority to record the reasons in writing while varying the stipulated conditions for suspending or revoking the licence.

Justice Jhingan observed Section 17(3) (b) of the Act bestowed wide power on the licensing authority for varying the terms and conditions, revoking or cancelling the licence. “The requirement is of authority being satisfied that the grant or renewal of licence will not be against the public security, peace or safety. There cannot be a quarrel on the proposition that this discretion has to be exercised judiciously.”

Justice Jhingan added the order of cancellation did not mention the basis for bringing the case within the ambit of Section 17(3). “Moreover, mere involvement of the petitioner in an FIR in itself will not cover the case under Section 17(3) (b) of the Act.”

Setting aside the impugned orders, Justice Jhingan remitted the matter back to the authority concerned for deciding the issue afresh.