Allowed

Sri T G Narasimha Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023WP/5158/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petitioner's writ petition. The court quashed an administrative order denying renewal of his revolver license. It held that mere pendency of criminal cases is not a statutory ground for refusing renewal under Section 17 of the Arms Act and directed the authority to pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the endorsement declining renewal; directed the Competent Authority to pass appropriate orders on license renewal within 8 weeks.

Sri T G Narasimha Murthy Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 5158 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. T. G. NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O SRI T.V.GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.119, KARAGADDA COLONY, TAVAREKERE VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANJAY G, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 570 008.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY MS. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.09.22 ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, WHEREIN THE RENEWAL OF ARMS LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER IS NOT CONSIDERED AND DIRECT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT TO RENEW THE REVOLVER LICENSE BEARING NO. LN17351AICB820 (ANNEXURE-D) BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS IT FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 17.09.2022 by the Addl. District Commissioner, Bengaluru District, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has declined the renewal of revolver license of the petitioner on the score that the petitioner is embroiled in a

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶26

criminal case and the said case is pending consideration before the concerned Court.

¶27

Heard Sri. Sanjay G, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned AGA for the respondents.

¶28

The petitioner claims to be a former Zilla Panchayat President of Bangalore South Taluk of Tavarekere Hobli. He is in possession of a revolver license granted to him. It transpires that the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime No.24/2016 for offences punishable under Section 143, 427, 453, 188, 150, 151, 152 and 153 read with Section 149 of IPC and read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damages to the Public Properties Act, 1984. In the teeth of the pendency of the crime, the revolver license of the petitioner gets expired. The expiry of the license leads the petitioner to submit a representation to the Deputy Commissioner seeking renewal of his license in the year 2022. It comes to be rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 17.09.2022 on the ground that there are multiple crimes registered against the petitioner and therefore, the arms license that was subsisting cannot be renewed in

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶31

favour of the petitioner. It is this endorsement that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be the reason for declining renewal of revolver license. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court and that of High Court of Allahabad. The learned counsel would further contend that the crimes so registered against the petitioner have all been closed by the complaints being withdrawn by the State. The submission is placed on record.

¶33

The learned AGA would refute the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner is involved in multiple crimes. There are three crimes registered against the petitioner which are pending consideration before the concerned Court. The learned AGA would admit that the memos have been filed before the concerned Court seeking withdrawal of the complaints by the State in two of the cases

¶34

and in one of the cases, the learned AGA would dispute the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶37

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶38

submissions made by the respective learned counsels and have perused the material on record.

¶39

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The grant and renewal of the revolver license is dealt with under Section 17 of the Arms Act.

¶40

Section 17 of the Arms Act reads as follows.

¶41

17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.—

¶42

(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.

¶43

(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.

¶44

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence—

¶45

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

¶46

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶49

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

¶50

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

¶51

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.

¶52

(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.

¶53

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

¶54

(6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.

¶55

(7) A court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void.

¶56

(8) An order of suspension or revocation under subsection (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.

¶57

(9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶60

(10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation.

¶61

Section 17 of the Arms Act nowhere contemplates that if a criminal case is pending, the license of a revolver or an arm that is granted can be withheld or declined to be renewed. The only circumstances that is available under Section 17 is violation of the condition of license that is not the issue in the case at hand. The impugned endorsement clearly narrates that the license is declined to be renewed on the score that the petitioner is involved in multiple crimes. Though, the crimes have all been sought to be withdrawn by the State themselves that cannot be the circumstance that can deny renewal of a license.

¶62

This Court in W.P.No.16362/2022, disposed on 13.06.2023, has held as follows:-

¶63

“7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, as the issue lies in a narrow compass. Grant of licence is as obtaining under Section 13 of the Indian Arms Act reads as follows:

¶64

"13. Grant of licences.—

¶65

(1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and

¶66

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶67

shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.

¶68

[(2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time.

¶69

(2A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2), shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same: Provided that where the officer in charge of the nearest police station does not send his report on the application within the prescribed time, the licensing authority may, if it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting for that report.]

¶70

(3) The licensing authority shall grant—

¶71

(a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required—

¶72

(i) by a citizen of India in repsect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection: Provided that where having regard to the circumstances of any case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient for crop protection, the licensing authority may grant a licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such protection; or

¶73

(ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government;

¶74

(b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under section 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same."

¶75

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶77

8. A licence granted under Section 13 would continue to be in subsistence for the period that it is granted and any revocation of such licence can be made only in terms of conditions obtaining Section 17, Section 17 of the Act reads as follows:

¶78

"17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.—

¶79

¶80

(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.

¶81

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence—

¶82

¶83

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

¶84

¶85

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

¶86

10 -

¶87

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶88

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.

¶89

(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.

¶90

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefore and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

¶91

¶92

¶93

(8) An order of suspension or revocation under subsection (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.

¶94

¶95

¶96

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶97

authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation."

¶98

9. In terms of Section 17, pendency of a criminal case cannot be the circumstance that would warrant revocation of the arms licence that is granted to the petitioner. In the light of the solitary ground on which the petitioner's licence is sought to be revoked and that having found to be unsustainable, the petition deserves to be succeed.”

¶99

(Emphasis supplied)

¶100

Likewise, the High Court of Allahabad in the case of RAM VILAS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in 2023

¶101

SCC Online All 416, has held as follows:

¶102

“14. In the case of Indra Pratap @ Ram Pratap v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Lucknow and Others4 in Misc. Single No. 28781 of 2017 decided on 15.2.2019, this Court vide paragraphs 8,9,10 and 11 has held thus:-

¶103

¶104

"8. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate Basti and others, 1979 (16)ACC 6 (sum), wherein the Division Bench relied upon an earlier decision in Mast Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573. In both the aforesaid cases it has been held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way effect the public security or public interest. In view of this proposition of law the order cancelling or revoking the licence of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of involvement and pendency of a criminal case is not tenable.

¶105

9. In Full Bench Decision of this Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984(10) ALR 223 and Kailash Nath and others Vs. State

¶106

12 -

¶107

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶108

of U.P. and others, 1985 (22) ACC 353 and in the case of Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1994 JIC 72 (All); 1995 (Supp) ACC 235, it has been held that mere pendency of a criminal case (s) is no ground for cancellation of arms licence. The effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions was also considered in Sadri Ram Vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others, 1998 (3) AWC 2102: 1998 (37) ACC 830.

¶109

10. This court in the case of Harprasad (supra) held as hereunder:

¶110

" involvement and pendency of a case crime is no ground for cancellation of fire-arm licence. It is settled law that after acquittal the very basis for cancellation of the arm licence stands vitiated. In this regard reference of the decision rendered in Lalji Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and another, 1999 (4) AWC 2952, has been made." 11. Thus in view of the admitted facts and the settled legal position that a fire arm licence can not be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement of licensee in a criminal case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Even otherwise the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case in which he was involved and hence there is no justification for the continuance of the cancellation of the petitioner's fire arm licence."

¶111

Likewise, the relevant observations in the case of Mukesh Kumar Yadav (supra) are reproduced as under:-

¶112

"10. The said section has come up for judicial scrutiny in the case of C.P. Sahu Vs. State, 1984 AWC 145; Kailashnath Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1985 AWC 493; Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1988 AWC 14814; Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1995 ACJ 200 and as per the judicial provocation given, there on the following points:-

¶113

(a) the licensing authority has no power to suspend the arms licence pending enquiry into its cancellation/suspension nor has it the power to suspend the licence for indefinite period;

¶114

13 -

¶115

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶116

(b) licensing authority has the power to suspend for specified period a fire-arm licence on being satisfied as to existence of all or any of the conditions visualised by clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act sans any prior opportunity of hearing being given to the licence holder but such order of suspension shall not attain finality until the aggrieved party has been heard and his objections, if any, adjudicated. In other words, suspension of arms licence for specified period or its revocation under Section 17(3) of the Act, if ordered without affording opportunity of hearing, would endure in suspended animation until the aggrieved party has been heard by the licensing authority and his objections, if any, are adjudicated:

¶117

(c) the licensing authority can also for the furtherance of the immediate remedial actions, exercise in facts and circumstances of a given case, an incidental power of directing the licence holder to surrender his licence until objections have been decided ; and

¶118

(d) suspension under Section 17(3) of the Act must be for definite period to be specified in the order by the licensing authority.

¶119

11. Further, this Court in the case of Sahab Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra Region, Agra and others 2006 (24) LCD 374, in paragraph No. 3 held as under:-

¶120

"The submission of the petitioner is that merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. in support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in the case of Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P. . It has further been submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balaram Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. 1985 A.W.C. 493 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh

¶121

14 -

¶122

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶123

and Ors., the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry."

¶124

15. In view of the well-settled legal proposition and the relevant case laws referred above and the provisions contained in the said Act, this Court finds that in the present case, the petitioner's licence was cancelled by the concerned District Magistrate on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. The petitioner was later on acquitted of the criminal case by order dated 23.07.2021. A perusal of the order of acquittal does not show the use of fire arm. After acquittal, the very basis of the order of cancellation vanished. The finding of the concerned District Magistrate as affirmed by the Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of public peace and the public security that the licence remained with the petitioner/licencee, is not based on any evidence/material, except the police reports which in their turn, were in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. On mere apprehension expressed in the impugned orders that the petitioner would misuse the fire arm and would extend threat to the persons of the weaker section of the society, the arm licence could not be cancelled.

¶125

16. Thus in view of above exposition of law and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the licensing authority cancelling the fire arms license of the petitioner dated 02.08.2019 deserves to be quashed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 in case No.377/2019 (computerized case No.C201918000000377) as well as the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 in appeal no.225/2017 (Computerized Case No.D201718210225) are hereby quashed.

¶126

In the light of the aforesaid circumstance and the law laid down by this Court and that of the High Court of Allahabad, the petition deserves to succeed.

¶127

15 -

¶128

NC: 2023:KHC:39959 WP No. 5158 of 2023

¶129

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶130

ORDER

¶131

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶132

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 17.09.2022 at Annexure – E, issued by the Additional District Commissioner, Bengaluru District, stands quashed.

¶133

iii. The Competent Authority shall pass appropriate orders on the application for renewal of license, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶134

Sd/JUDGE

¶135

¶136

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK

Sri T G Narasimha Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T G Narasimha Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Ramesh P Vs Sri M Visveswaraya Co. Op Bank Ltd.

Sri.Ranjan R Pai Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Zakwan Ahmed Vs the Union of India

Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish Vs Commisioner of Police

Sri. Narendra K Vs Can Fin Homes Ltd.