Complaint Alone Insufficient To Justify Revocation Of Arms License, Requires Evidence Of Breach In Public Peace Or Safety: Patna High Court

Patna High Court has directed the District Magistrate, Patna to re-evaluate the cancellation of an arms license, stating that the mere existence of a complaint is insufficient grounds for revocation unless it poses a threat to public peace or safety.

The above direction was issued by Justice Harish Kumar while disposing of a writ application filed by one, Rajnish Singh, who sought to implement an order from the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, to reinstate the arms license.

The court observed, “Even though a sanha might have been lodged but that could not be said to be sufficient reason to cancel the license of the petitioner unless which causes incidence of breach of security of the public peace or public safety at the behest of the petitioner.”

The case stems from Rajnish Singh's application for the restoration of his arms license, which was initially rejected by the Collector, Patna. However, the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, overturned the rejection and remanded the case back to the District Magistrate, Patna, for fresh consideration. But despite the remand, the District Magistrate, Patna, dismissed the petitioner's case for license restoration, prompting the petitioner to challenge the decision through an Interlocutory Application.

During the proceedings, the State counsel, Suman Kumar Jha, argued that the application was not maintainable since the order in question could be challenged before the Divisional Commissioner.

However, senior counsel PN Shahi, representing the petitioner, vehemently refuted this argument, highlighting that the District Magistrate, Patna, who rejected the case, also held the position of Divisional Commissioner, making an appeal against the order futile. The court found merit in this submission.

According to the petitioner, Rajnish Singh, the arms license was originally granted to him in 2004 and had been regularly renewed until 2019-21. However, in 2019, during a raid at the petitioner's residence, where he was reportedly absconding in a criminal case, the police seized a N.P. Bore rifle, 32 live cartridges, and other items such as currency notes and jewelry. Following the police report, the petitioner was issued a notice to explain why his arms license should not be cancelled.

In response, Rajnish Singh submitted a detailed show-cause reply, denying the charges and asserting that the seized arms and ammunition were legally licensed and had never been misused.

However, the licensing authority proceeded to cancel the petitioner's arms license. In response, the petitioner appealed the decision before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. Considering the petitioner's submissions and the relevant legal precedents, the Divisional Commissioner set aside the District Magistrate's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Upon remand, the District Magistrate, without seeking a fresh police report, again rejected the petitioner's claim and canceled the arms license. The District Magistrate relied on two cases registered against the petitioner in Barh and Bihta, alleging various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, as well as a complaint regarding the petitioner's involvement in voter intimidation during the Bihar Assembly Election of 2020.

Senior counsel Shahi drew the court's attention to a judgment rendered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barh, in which the petitioner was acquitted of all charges related to the Barh case. Furthermore, Shahi argued that the Bihta case was ongoing, with the petitioner currently out on bail, and that the voter intimidation complaint was not lodged by any private individual but rather initiated by the Station House Officer, Barh Police Station.

In response, the State counsel argued that, following the remand, a fresh report had been obtained, revealing Singh's close association with criminals and his involvement in intimidating local residents with firearms.

The State counsel further mentioned the sanha (complaint) filed at the Barh police station, which alleged Singh's involvement in threatening voters and prompted a report for necessary action under Section 3(3) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981.

The Court, in its verdict noted that while a complaint had been registered regarding voter intimidation during the Assembly Election 2020, no further action had been taken against the petitioner due to insufficient evidence. Additionally, the court highlighted that the petitioner had been acquitted of all charges related to the Barh case back in 2016.

While emphasizing that once a person obtains an arms license and acquires a firearm, it becomes their property, and they possess a statutory right to acquire, possess, and dispose of it, the court stated that the petitioner should not be deprived of this statutory right unless reasonable restrictions have been imposed by applicable laws.

In this context, the court noted that the impugned order did not reflect any consideration of the petitioner's reply and suffered from a lack of proper application of mind. Furthermore, the court emphasized that neither the notice nor the impugned order cited any breach of public peace or public safety, and the order was based on non-existent materials.

Considering these factors, the Court set aside the District Magistrate's impugned order and remanded the matter to the licensing authority (District Magistrate, Patna) for a fresh evaluation. The Court directed the licensing authority to obtain a fresh police report and issue a reasoned order, taking into account the observations made. The entire process must be completed within three months.

Case Title: Rajnish Singh @ Rajnish Kumar @ Chuhwa vs. The State of Bihar Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3709 of 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment