Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sheshrao @ Vijay Bhikaji Salve, applied for a licence to acquire, hold, and possess a firearm under the Arms Act, 1959. The licensing authority, the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, rejected the application by order dated 19.07.2011 on two grounds: (i) two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, and (ii) the grounds for seeking the firearm were not believed to be genuine. The petitioner appealed under Section 18 of the Arms Act, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the communication dated 19.07.2011 and found that the first ground mentioned two criminal cases: C.R. No. 1306/2002 at Kranti Chowk Police Station and C.R. No. I-136/2001 at Jawaharnagar Police Station. However, it was not disputed that both cases had already been disposed of and the petitioner had been acquitted, as evidenced by a letter dated 26.05.2011 from the Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Aurangabad. The appellate authority did not address this aspect. The court held that the licensing authority's decision was influenced by the belief that two criminal cases were pending, which was factually incorrect. Since the ground was based on a non-existent fact, the rejection was unsustainable. The court set aside the orders of the licensing authority and the appellate authority and directed the licensing authority to reconsider the application afresh, uninfluenced by the fact of the two criminal cases, and pass a fresh order within four weeks. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Arms Act - Firearm Licence - Rejection on Ground of Pendency of Criminal Cases - Licensing authority rejected application citing two pending criminal cases, but the cases had already resulted in acquittal - The decision was influenced by a non-existent fact - Held that the rejection is unsustainable and liable to be set aside (Paras 2-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of a firearm licence on the ground of pendency of criminal cases is sustainable when the cases had already resulted in acquittal.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the licensing authority and appellate authority, and directed the licensing authority to reconsider the application afresh uninfluenced by the fact of the two criminal cases, within four weeks.
Law Points
- Licensing authority must base decision on correct facts
- Pendency of criminal cases must be actual
- Not merely alleged
- Arms Act
- 1959 Section 18 appeal
