Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Former ADM Who Allegedly Recommended Arms License For 'Thokku Swami'

Bhadranandaji also known as Himaval Bhadranandaji came to limelight when in 2008, he reportedly fired a gun towards a group of journalists in the premises of Aluva police station.

In the instant case, it was alleged that the arms license was given to the Bhadranandaji due to the personal recommendation given by the then Additional District Magistrate. The former ADM and Bhadranandaji was booked under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, Rule 51-A (suppressing any factual information or giving any false information in the application) of Arms Rule and Section 30 (Punishment for contravention of license or rule) of the Arms Act. They both had approached the Court to quash further proceedings in the case against them.

It was alleged that the former ADM while forwarding the application for arms license of Bhadranandaji to District Collector put a note that he had personal acquaintance with Bhadranandaji and he was of good character. It was recommended to give him gun license without further enquiry. The prosecution case is that the Collector granted license on the recommendation of the ADM. Later, negative recommendation about the Bhadranandaji was given by the Commissioner of Police, Kochi City and SI of Central Police Station saying that the accused was involved in certain crimes and saying that his financial source was suspicious. Subsequently, the license was cancelled by the Collector one and a half months after granting it.

However, the petitioners had submitted that the Collector granted license only after considering the report submitted by the Sub Inspector and therefore, the ADM cannot be held liable.

Justice P. G. Ajithkumar said that as per Section 13 of the Arms Act and Rule 2(5) of the Arms Rules, the District Magistrate is the authority empowered to grant license and it was upon him to get the report of the police officer in the nearest police station on getting an application for license. The Court held that the Collector was not bound by the recommendation of the ADM and hence ADM cannot be accused of misusing his official position as required under Section 13(d)(ii) of the PC Act.

However, the Court in strong words condemned the personal recommendation given by the ADM and said it was a dereliction of duty.

“It certainly can be said that the 1^st accused by making the recommendation in question, committed a grave dereliction of duty. Such a recommendation is in gross violation of his duty as a public servant. He should not have made such a recommendation which was inferable actuated by his personal affinity to the 2^nd accused. A public servant is expected to take decisions by virtue of his office dispassionately and unaffected by anu personal predictions. In that prospective, the recommendation mase by the 1^st accused is tainted.

The Court added that he could not be held liable under Section 13(1)(d) as his recommendation alone could not have resulted in issuance of the license.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates S. Jayant, V. N. Sunil Kumar, Akhil P.C., Prasanth N. L., Jarees J

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Rekha S. (Sr. PP), A. Rajesh (Spl. PP (Vig)),