The State of Bihar Vs Krishna Prasad Singh — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The State of Bihar Vs Krishna Prasad Singh — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The review petition stands disposed of with modified directions: the seized .38 bore revolver is to be auctioned, the auction date to be intimated to the petitioner in advance; the amount fetched is to be handed to him after checking his credentials; the entire process to be completed within three months; and if no person entitled to possess a .38 bore revolver comes forward on the auction day, the respondents are to pay the petitioner an appropriate amount considering the revolver's age (purchased almost three decades ago). The writ court's direction for a fresh licence of the permissible category was left unaltered.

Issue for consideration

Whether the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 24.09.2019 in CWJC No. 19343/ 2016 (Krishna Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) — grant of a fresh arms licence of the permissible category and payment by the State of the cost of the seized .38 bore revolver — ought to be interfered with in Civil Review No. 35 of 2020 filed by the State of Bihar. +2 more

Court's answer

The Court did not disturb the writ court's compensation direction in principle: it accepted that, given the petitioner's bona fide belief at purchase, his surrender immediately upon the advertisement, and the renewal of the arms licence up to 2009 notwithstanding the prohibition, it was in that background that the writ court directed the State to compensate him.

Ratio / Principle

The Court substituted the mode of restitution directed by the impugned judgment: instead of the State government directly compensating the petitioner, the seized .38 bore revolver is to be auctioned, with the date of the auction informed to the petitioner in time so that he remains present there.

Key takeaways

The amount realised from the auction of the .38 bore revolver is to be handed over to the petitioner after checking his credentials, and the entire process is to be completed within the next three months.ratio¶42
If those entitled to possess .38 bore revolvers do not come forward on the day of the auction, the only alternative left with the respondents is to pay an appropriate amount to the petitioner, taking into account the age of the revolver as it was purchased almost three decades ago.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J), by order dated 19-06-2025, disposed of the State of Bihar's Civil Review No. 35 of 2020 challenging the judgment/order dated 24.09.2019 in CWJC No. 19343/ 2016 (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J), which had directed the District Magistrate, Gaya to issue a fresh arms licence of the permissible category and to pay the writ petitioner the cost of his seized Webley & Scott .38 bore revolver. The Court kept the compensation principle intact — noting the petitioner's bona fide purchase in 1991, prompt surrender after the District Collector's 2009 advertisement declaring the .38 bore prohibited, and renewal of the licence until 2009 — but altered the mode of restitution: the seized revolver is to be auctioned with advance notice to the petitioner, the proceeds handed to him after credential verification, the whole process completed within three months, and, failing eligible buyers, the respondents to pay an appropriate amount considering the revolver's age. Obiter: the Collector's office ignored the 1991–2009 irregular renewals; action against the renewing officials is equally important; the order is confined to these facts and has no bearing on other cases.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 24.09.2019 in CWJC No. 19343/ 2016 (Krishna Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay, directing the District Magistrate, Gaya to grant a fresh arms licence of the permissible category preferably within four months and, within a further period of one month, to take a decision to compensate the petitioner by paying the cost of the .38 bore revolver at the rate at which he had purchased it.¶18
Patna High Court · 24.09.2019
Prior proceeding
Arms licence no. 1230 dated 1988 (NP bore revolver/pistol) was granted; pursuant to it the writ petitioner purchased a Webley & Scott (.38 bore) revolver.¶21
Prior proceeding
From 1991 till 2009 the revolver was regularly produced before the office of the Arms Magistrate, Gaya and renewed from time to time.¶22
Prior proceeding
In 2009 the District Collector, Gaya advertised that the .38 bore revolver falls within the prohibited category and holders had to surrender it by 17.03.2009 (Annexure P/1 to the writ petition).¶22
Prior proceeding
The writ petitioner surrendered the revolver; it was seized, whereafter he moved this Court in CWJC No. 9524 of 2010.¶23
Prior proceeding
CWJC No. 9524 of 2010 was disposed of on 14.02.2012 by a bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh, as his lordship then was), directing the District Magistrate, Gaya to take appropriate decision in the matter within three weeks.¶23
Prior proceeding
Order dated 20.09.2013 of the District Magistrate, Gaya followed the 14.02.2012 direction.¶24
Prior proceeding
Vide the order dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), the District Magistrate, Gaya, quoting different circulars/orders of the State Government placing the .38 bore revolver in the prohibited category, seized the revolver.¶26
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved, CWJC No. 19343 of 2016 was filed and disposed of on 24.04.2019 by Patna High Court; the narrative gives this date although the review relief recital describes the impugned judgment and order as dated 24.09.2019.¶27
Prior proceeding
Para 6 of the judgment in CWJC No. 19343 of 2016: since the petitioner purchased the .38 bore revolver when it was not in the prohibited category, the respondents were asked to compensate him by paying its cost, as he could not be made to suffer a subsequent change of position.¶28
Prior proceeding
Para 7 of the judgment in CWJC No. 19343 of 2016: necessary decision for grant of a fresh arms licence of the permissible category to be issued by the District Magistrate, Gaya preferably within four months; within a further period of one month, decision to compensate by paying the cost of the .38 bore revolver at the purchase rate, upon the petitioner filing an application with a copy of the order.¶29
Prior proceeding
Para 8 of the judgment in CWJC No. 19343 of 2016: with the aforesaid directions, the writ application stood disposed of.¶32