A Negligent Act In Handling The Weapon Provides Sufficient Ground To Hold That The Licensee Is An Unfit Person To Carry A Firearm: Delhi HC [Read Order]

Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru was hearing a petition wherein petitioner had challenged the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, whereby the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Licensing Authority was rejected. By the said order dated 17.11.2017, the Licensing Authority had cancelled the Arms License granted to the petitioner in respect of a .32 Bore Revolver.

Background

On 30.10.2016, an incident had happened at a shop known as 'Pooja Optical' located near Durgapuri Chowk, which resulted in a bullet injury to another person by the discharge of the said firearm. The petitioner claimed that he was carrying the said weapon in his pocket and the same had accidentally fallen from his pocket and misfired. Resultantly, the victim who was also at the shop suffered the bullet injury.

A First Information Report (FIR) with regard to the said incident was filed, under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. After inquiry, it was found that the licensed revolver had fallen out accidently and accordingly, the case against the petitioner was closed.

Cancellation of license

The Licensing Authority examined the same and found that the incident clearly established that the petitioner was negligent and careless in handling the licensed weapon. The Licensing Authority also found that there was no real threat perception warranting the petitioner to carry a firearm.

Petitioner's case was that he required carrying the said firearm for his self-defense, since he is an advocate and has to travel from court to court. The Licensing Authority did not find this explanation to be convincing and passed the order cancelling the petitioner's license.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. However, the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor also did not find any infirmity with the decision of the Licensing Authority.

Submissions

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioner was closed and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Licensing Authority to pass the order on the same facts. He stated that a person cannot be tried again for the same offence. He also submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Licensing Authority and the Lieutenant Governor were, therefore, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Negligence on part of petitioner undisputed

Finding no merit in such contentions, Court said that the fact that the criminal case against the petitioner had been closed only indicates that the concerned authority found that there was no criminal involvement on the part of the petitioner. However, that is not the ground on which the arms license has been cancelled, court noted. It said that the Licensing Authority had found that the petitioner had acted negligently in handling the weapon can hardly be disputed.

Court also found explanation given by petitioner for carrying the weapon as "unpersuasive". It said that there is no material produced by the petitioner which indicates that there is any reasonable apprehension of threat requiring the petitioner to carry the weapon.

It found no fault in decision of Licensing Authority as to cancellation of petitioner's license as no adequate care was taken by the petitioner in handling it and accordingly dismissed the petition.

Click here to download the Order