The Police Station, Wadwani,Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed....RESPONDENTSMr. B v. Thombre
Case Details
( 1 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2024Badrinath S/o. Rajaram SableAge: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,R/o. Primparkhed, Tq. Wadwani,Dist. Beed....PETITIONER VERSUS1. The Divisional Commissioner,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.2. The District Magistrate/District Collector, Beed,Dist. Beed.3. The District Superintendent of Police,Beed, Dist. Beed.4. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed.5. The Police Station, Wadwani,Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed....RESPONDENTSMr. B. V. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:9th JULY 2025.PRONOUNCED ON:28th JULY 2025.Ethape
Legal Reasoning
( 2 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024ORDER :-1.Heard Mr. Thombre, the learned Advocate for the petitioner andMr. Jadhav, the learned APP for Respondent-State. The matter is heardfinally at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties. 2.The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the judgmentand order dated 24th April 2024, passed by the learned DivisionalCommissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in an Appeal confirming theorder dated 12th January 2024, passed by the learned District Magistrate,Beed. By the said order, the learned District Magistrate refused to renewthe license of the petitioner. 3.The facts, in short, are that the petitioner was holding an armslicense and a revolver, being agriculturist and residing in agriculturalfield away from the village. The license was bearing No.91/BR/21-A. Hewas having revolver made in England Mark IXI 32 bearing No. A-58344.On 20th April 2011, a complaint came to be lodged against the petitionerat Wadwani police station vide C.R. No.21/2011, for the offencesEthape ( 3 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024punishable under Sections 376, 420, 312, 109 and 506 read with 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(10)(xii) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, andalso Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and soalso under Section 4(25) of the Arms Act and under Sections 22 and 23of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention ofMisuse) Act, 1994. 4.The petitioner moved an application before the learned SessionsCourt seeking anticipatory bail. The said application came to be allowedvide order dated 14th June 2011, on certain conditions. In view of theconditions, he surrendered his revolver to the Investigating Officer on15th June 2011 alongwith a copy of the license. Since then, it has been inthe custody of the Investigating Officer.5.The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 443of 2012 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 12th October 2012directed the Investigating Officer to hand over the custody of theEthape ( 4 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024revolver and its license to the petitioner. Pursuant to this order, therevolver and license came to be handed over. Thereafter, the petitionermade an application for renewal of license. Inspite of pending license,the learned Collector issued a show cause notice dated 6th November2013 to the petitioner as to why license should not be cancelled. Therespondent No.2, thereafter, passed an order dated 18th November 2013and cancelled the license. Against that, the petitioner preferred anAppeal No. 34 of 2013 before the learned Divisional Commissioner.However, the said appeal also came to be rejected. 6.In the meantime, on 3rd January 2015, the petitioner came to beacquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon. It wasdirected to release the muddemal property. The petitioner, therefore,made an application for handing over legal custody of the revolver withlicense, and also made a request for renewal of license. The authoritysubmitted a report giving no objection for release of the revolver. Thepetitioner, therefore, again approached this Court. This Court, vide orderdated 4th May 2016, directed the respondent No.2 to take appropriateEthape ( 5 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024decision on the application dated 27th January 2015, within two months.The respondent No.2, however, confirmed the earlier order. 7.The petitioner, thereafter, made applications dated 14th February2023 and 27th September 2023 to respondent No.2 requesting renewalof arms license. The said application came to be rejected by order dated12th January 2024. The appeal thereagainst also came to be dismissed.Thus, the petitioner is before this Court. 8.The learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued thatthe petitioner was granted a license considering the application longback. He was falsely implicated by his political rivals in a criminal case.He has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Court. He further submitsthat even this Court, vide order dated 12th October 2012 passed in WritPetition No.443 of 2012, had directed the authorities to return back therevolver. It was, therefore, necessary for the authorities to return therevolver and also to renew the license. He further relied on the orderpassed by this Court dated 12th December 2014 passed in Criminal WritEthape
Decision
( 6 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024Petition No. 1177 of 2014 filed by this petitioner. This Court granted himliberty to apply to the authorities or the Court where the revolver is keptfor servicing purpose by depositing the charges in the same. 9.Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that the trialin connection with which the revolver was seized is concluded and cameto be decided on 3rd January 2015. Thus, there is no valid reason for notrenewing the license. Even the police had given a report to the DistrictMagistrate in June 2022 stating that there was no objection to renew thelicense. However, still the license was not renewed. He submits that thelearned Collector still failed to renew the license vide order dated 12thJanuary 2024. The learned Commissioner also failed to apply his mindand rejected the appeal by impugned order dated 24th April 2024. Hethus prays for allowing the writ petition by directing the authorities torenew the license of the petitioner under Arms Act and to release themuddemal property i.e., the revolver, which is in custody of RespondentNos.4 and 5. He submits that the learned Commissioner has wronglyobserved that the Sessions Case No. 01 of 2012 is pending with theEthape ( 7 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024learned Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, in fact, he was acquitted for the saidcase. 10.Learned APP vehemently opposed the petition. He submits thatvide order dated 12th December 2014, this Court had only observed thatit is open for the petitioner to approach the authorities again only if hewas acquitted in the offences. The authority was to take decision on itsown merit. He submits that thus the order is of no use to the petitioner.He submits that the authority always has to consider matters on its ownmerits. In the present case, the learned District Magistrate by usingdiscretion and taking an overall view, has rightly rejected theapplication. Learned APP further submits that even the learnedDivisional Commissioner has considered the matter on merits and hasrejected the appeal. 11.This Court heard the arguments of the parties. The grant orrenewal of license is governed by the provisions of the Arms Act. Thelearned Districts Magistrate is vested with the power to grant licensesEthape ( 8 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024under Section 13 of the Arms Act. The renewal is to be made underSection 15 of the said Act. Merely because, the police have given noobjection is no reason to renew the license. Though there is an orderdated 12th December 2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1177of 2014, this Court had only granted liberty to apply to the authorities.The authorities were to take a decision on its own merits. There isnothing to indicate that the High Court had specifically directed torenew the license. Merely because, the petitioner is acquitted is noreason to renew the license. The learned Collector has considered thereport received from the District Superintendent of Police, Beed andSub-Divisional Magistrate, Majalgaon. 12.The learned Commissioner, while deciding the appeal, has givenhearing to the petitioner and then passed the order. It is seen that whilerejecting the application, the learned Divisional Commissioner hasmerely considered that the case is pending against the accused.However, the said finding is against the record. The petitioner wasacquitted in the year 2015 from the said case. Before the learnedEthape ( 9 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024Commissioner, this was specifically pointed out and this ground alsoraised in the written submission. However, the learned Commissionerfailed to appreciate this fact. Except that, there is no other reasonrecorded for not allowing the application and the appeal. When theground on which the application was rejected itself is not in existence,there is no question of refusing to renew the license and to give backpossession on such non-existing ground. This Court finds that both theauthorities have failed to apply their mind properly and refused torenew the license. The order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and setaside. Hence, the following order: ORDER(i)Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).(ii)The learned District Magistrate shall renew the license granted tothe petitioner.(iii)The petitioner shall file an undertaking to this Court that in casepetitioner is found using the revolver for any unlawful purpose or forEthape ( 10 ) Cri.WP-1349-2024threatening the people, the said license shall be liable to be cancelled. (iv)With this, writ petition stands disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]Ethape