Read Time: 11 minutes

Dealing with the question as to whether acquittal in a criminal case of a firearm  licensee itself is relevant in deciding on suspension of his firearm’s licence, the Allahabad High Court has held that mere acquittal cannot be the sole ground for altering/reviewing/setting aside the suspension order, nature of acquittal will also be considered.

The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery said that particularly where the offences are against the state or against public tranquillity or affecting human body & life or sexual offences etc, the nature of acquittal would still remain a ground for consideration to continue with the suspension/cancellation of the firearm license.

The court said that it would be seen whether the acquittal was an honorable acquittal or acquittal granting benefit of doubt or prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 

The court was hearing a writ petition that challenged the firearm licensing authority’s decision to continue with the suspension of the petitioner's firearm license, who was accused in an attempt to murder case but later on, got an acquittal for being granted the benefit of doubt.

The licensing authority had considered that petitioner's licensed arm was used in occurrence and the injured remained under medical treatment, therefore, it deemed 'the continuation of the suspension order of petitioner's firearm' necessary for the security of public peace and for public order.

Challenging this decision of the licensing authority's, the petitioner’s counsel had argued that since subsequently there was an acquittal in the criminal case, the basis of the notice for cancellation of arms licence itself disappeared, therefore, the nature or manner of the acquittal was immaterial and consequently the order of cancellation of arms licence ought not to have passed.

However, Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently argued that the suspension of the licence under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is subject to satisfaction of the licensing authority and is subjective in nature, therefore, the nature of acquittal i.e. whether the acquittal is honorable acquittal or on the basis of benefit of doubt would be a relevant factor.

Court’s observations

Stating that acquiring of an arms licence is only a privilege and is not a fundamental right of a citizen, court observed that the licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge to assess the situation on the basis of material which is before it and its assessment cannot be substituted by Court’s decision except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material.

Observing thus, court also held that there must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licensee is not fit to continue holding of licence and that it is important for the licensing authority to take appropriate decision considering the factors mentioned in Sections 13,14 and 17 of the Act, 1959 including the nature of acquittal to form a reasoned opinion whether to refuse, grant, suspend or revoke the licence.

Court added, “acquittal per se does not result into disappearance of ground for suspension or revocation of arms licence. The licensing authority on the basis of its subjective satisfaction after considering the material available can still determine as to whether revocation could be continued or on the basis of nature of acquittal particularly in the cases where the allegations are serious in nature such as murder, rape, dacoity, robbery, offence involving attempt to murder etc.”

It also discussed the words, used in Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959, which are “deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety”.

The Court said, “It is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may take place to revoke or suspend the arms licence. The licensing authority on the basis of material available, if deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety may revoke the arms licence.”

It therefore opined that this is a precautionary measure, therefore, it is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may occur.

It was reaffirmed that “therefore, at this stage subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority comes into picture and if the licensing authority finds that due to certain act whether it is affecting to an individual or public at large, may for the security of public peace or for public safety, may suspend or revoke the arms licence.”

The court further went on to add that even the criminal antecedent of the licensee are very important factor for consideration for granting license and in these circumstances, even pendency of a criminal case involving serious offence may be sufficient to suspend or revoke the arms licence.

In view of the above discussion and facts of the case that there was a misuse of licensee’s firearm it was not a case of honorable acquittal, it was held that licensing authority was correct to hold that it was not in the interest of public order and for security of public peace to continue the arms licence with the petitioner and it was rightly canceled.

Case Title: Indrajeet Singh v. State of UP and 4 Others

[Picture credit: The Economic Times]