Pending Criminal Case Not Sole Ground To Cancel Arms License Unless Public Peace & Safety At Threat: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that if the licensing authority is satisfied that a person is involved in criminal activity and there is a possible threat to public safety and public peace, it may cancel such person's arms license.Majid Khan had filed a writ petition challenging cancellation of his arms license following registration of two criminal cases against him in 2018...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that if the licensing authority is satisfied that a person is involved in criminal activity and there is a possible threat to public safety and public peace, it may cancel such person's arms license.
Majid Khan had filed a writ petition challenging cancellation of his arms license following registration of two criminal cases against him in 2018 and 2019. The District Magistrate had concluded that continuing petitioner's arm license would not be in the interest of public peace and safety. Petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner was rejected, leading him to challenge both orders in the High Court.
His Counsel argued that mere registration of a criminal case does not justify the cancellation of an arm license. They cited Mohd. Haroon vs. State of M.P. (2022) where the suspension of an arm license solely based on pending criminal cases was deemed unlawful by the High Court.
The State's counsel cited a Division Bench judgment in Suneel Kumar Singh vs. State of M.P. (2022) which upheld the authority's right to refuse or cancel an arm license if deemed necessary for public security.
Justice GS Ahluwalia acknowledged the petitioner's argument but highlighted the differences between the current case and the Mohd. Haroon precedent. In Petitioner's case, the District Magistrate had explicitly recorded that petitioner 's involvement in criminal activities posed a potential threat to public safety and peace. The court noted that the petitioner failed to challenge this recorded satisfaction or present evidence to refute it.
The court also considered the timeline of petitioner 's actions. His appeal to the Commissioner was filed 19 months after the initial cancellation order, and the writ petition was filed three years after the appellate decision, indicating a lack of urgency or imminent threat to Khan's life.
It thus dismissed the petition.
Case title: Majid Khan Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: WP 19267 of 2024