IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 108 of 2024

======================================================

Sunil Kumar Sinha Son of Late Shyam Bihari Lal Resident of Flat No. 105,

Keshav Place, Baily Road, Khajpura, Shashtrinagar, Rukanpura, Patna, Bihar-

800014.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Home Department, Govt.

of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Principal Secretary Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.

4.The District Magistrate, Supaul, Bihar.

5.The District Arms Magistrate, Supaul, Bihar.

6.The S.H.O., SC/ST Police Station, Sachiwalya, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Standing Counsel (12)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

CAV JUDGMENT

Date: 08-10-2024

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the

order dated 07.06.2023, passed by the District Magistrate,

Supaul, whereby and whereunder the arms license of the

petitioner, bearing Arms License No.402 of 2019 has been

cancelled and the petitioner has been asked to deposit his arms

with the police station at Supaul. The petitioner has also prayed

for quashing the order dated 29.11.2023, passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa in Arms

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

2/31

Appeal Case No.88 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the appeal

filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are

that the petitioner was granted arms licenses, bearing Arms

License No.111 of 2003, Arms License No.145 of 2003 and Arms

License No.146 of 2003 (one for Revolver, one for Rifle and one

for Double Barrel Gun), by the District Magistrate, Supaul, in the

year 2003 and therein the permanent address of the petitioner

was shown as Flat No.105, Keshav Place, Shashtri Nagar, Baily

Road, Patna and the current address was mentioned as C/o.

Hemkant Jha, Ward No. 26, P.O and District- Supaul. The

petitioner had got his Arms licenses renewed from time to time

by paying the requisite fees and fulfilling all the requisite

conditions, as provided under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms

Rules, 2016. However, during the interregnum period, an FIR

was lodged against the petitioner bearing Sachiwalaya P.S. Case

No.75 of 2009, dated 16.06.2009, resulting in cancellation of the

arms licenses of the petitioner on 22.09.2009, however, since the

petitioner was acquitted in the said case, by a judgment dated

17.10.2017, the District Magistrate, Supaul by an order dated

28.01.2019, had again renewed the arms license of the petitioner,

after due verification was conducted by the police officials

regarding the residence of the petitioner situated at Supaul and

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

3/31

work/ business being carried out by him there. The petitioner had

subsequently, in the year 2022, filed an application for transfer of

arms licenses from District-Supaul to Patna district, before the

District Magistrate, Patna, along with the requisite documents but

instead of the license of the petitioner being transferred from

Supaul to Patna, the petitioner was surprised to receive a show

cause dated 13.04.2023, issued by the District Magistrate,

Supaul, wherein the following charges were levelled and the

petitioner was asked to submit his explanation to the same:-

i. Rent agreement or other documentary evidence has

not been provided while obtaining the arms license in

the District - Supaul.

ii. Evidence relating to work/business done by the

petitioner in the district of Supaul has not been made

available.

iii. Explanation is required to be furnished with regard

to Sachiwalaya Patna P.S. Case No. 13 of 2023 dt.

16.02.2023.

iv. Even after expiry of the validity of Arms Licenses,

the prescribed fee for renewal of the Arms Licenses

and application forms have not been submitted.

V. According to Rule 17 and Rule 21 of the Arms Rule,

2016 if a person who holds a license in Form III,

changes his place of residence, permanently, or

temporarily for a period of more than six months, and

carries with him the arms covered by the license, to a

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

4/31

place falling, other than within the jurisdiction of the

existing licensing authority indicated in the license, he

shall, immediately before the expiry of a period of six

months, send intimation about such change to the

licensing authority of the place of his new residence

and shall on demand, forthwith produce the license

and the arm or arms to the new licensing authority by

applying in Form B-1, indicating there in the

particulars of his new residence.

3. The petitioner had then submitted his reply on 12.05.2023,

to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 13.04.2023, in the

following terms:-

i. Charge No.1:- (Regarding non-submission of Rent

agreement/ other documentary evidence, while

obtaining arms license at Supaul):-

The issue with respect to the address of the

petitioner in the District of Supaul has already

stood settled. In fact the arms licenses of the

petitioner was cancelled on 22.09.2009, on

account of lodging of Sachiwalaya Patna P.S.

Case No.75 of 2009, however, since the

petitioner was acquitted in the said case, by a

judgment dated 17.10.2017, the petitioner had

approached the District Magistrate, Supaul.

Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Supaul vide

order contained in Memo No. 122-2 dt.

28.01.2019 had restored/renewed the Arms

licenses of the petitioner and had specifically

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

5/31

observed therein that the Superintendent of

Police, Supaul vide Letter no. 2763 dt.

25.08.2018, had directed the Officer-in charge,

Supaul Police Station to investigate the address

and ownership of the house of the petitioner at

Supaul, who during the course of enquiry had

quizzed one person namely Hemkant Jha, who

told that he knows the petitioner very well and

the petitioner lives temporarily in his house and

an affidavit to the said effect was also

submitted. Further, in the same order dt.

28.01.2019, it is also mentioned that for

issuance of Arms license in favor of the

petitioner in the year 2013, his application was

verified through the Superintendent of Police,

and the Officer-in charge, Karjain had reported

that the petitioner was living in the house of one

Ramdeo Mehta, Mohalla- Karjain, P.S.-

Karjain, who is a businessman and a social

worker. Thus, the address of the petitioner has

already stood verified twice, hence the aforesaid

allegation levelled against the petitioner has got

no substance.

ii. Charge No.2:- (The petitioner having not made

available evidence relating to works/ business being

carried out by him in the district of Supaul):-

In respect to this allegation, it has been

submitted that in the aforesaid order of the

District Magistrate, Supaul, contained in Memo

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

6/31

No.122-2 dt. 28.01.2019 itself, it has been

specifically observed that the petitioner was

residing in Supaul due to his business related

work. The Arms Act or Rules, do not contain

any provision, which requires the licensee to

provide details about his/her employment or

work status, after issuance of the license and

moreover, the licenses had originally been

issued to the petitioner, only after due

verification of all the above facts. Thus the

aforesaid allegation levelled against the

petitioner has got no substance.

iii. Charge No.3:- (Explanation regarding

Sachiwalaya Patna P.S. Case No. 13 of 2023):-

In this regard, it has been submitted that in the

aforesaid Sachiwalaya Patna (SC/ST) P.S. Case

No. 13 of 2023 dt. 16.03.2023, registered for the

offences under Sections 386, 387, 389, 406, 420,

500, 504, 506, 34 and 120 (B) of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 3 (i) (r) (s) (p) / 3(ii)

(b) of the SC/ST, Act, charge sheet has not yet

been submitted against the petitioner and in fact

no allegation has been levelled regarding

misuse of arms by the petitioner. There is no

provision under the Arms Act or Rules, which

provides for cancellation of the license of a

licensee in case of registration of an FIR.

Moreover, mere pendency of an FIR cannot be a

ground for cancellation / revocation of License

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

7/31

under the Arms Act or Rules. Therefore, the

allegation is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

iv. Charge No.4:- (Non-submission of the prescribed

fee for renewal of Arms License as also the

application form, after expiry of the validity period of

the Arms License):-

In this regard, it has been submitted that the

petitioner, in the year, 2022 had applied for

transfer of his Arms license from Supaul to

Patna and while the same was pending, the

license of the petitioner had expired on

31.12.2022, whereafter, the impugned order,

cancelling the license, has been passed on

07.06.2023. Thus, the issue of renewal of arms

license is mere technical in nature and the

petitioner is ready to deposit the fees and the

related application forms, once the impugned

orders are set aside. Therefore, the aforesaid

allegation cannot be a ground for passing the

impugned order of cancellation of license dated

07.06.2023.

v. Charge No.5 (Rule 17 and Rule 21 of the Arms

Rules, 2016):-

In this regard, it has been submitted that the

petitioner had already filed an application for

transfer of his arms licenses from the District of

Supaul to Patna, in the year 2022, before the

District Magistrate, Patna and instead of

allowing transfer of arms licenses to Patna, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

8/31

impugned order, cancelling the Arms license,

has been passed on 07.06.2023. It has been

pointed out that the District License Officer,

Supaul, vide letter dated 19.11.2022, had given

his no objection with regard to renewal of the

petitioner’s Arms License in Patna District,

however, subsequently vide letter dated

13.04.2023, the earlier NOC granted by the

District License Officer, Supaul has been

recalled on the ground of subsequent

registration of FIR against the petitioner and

for the reason that the petitioner has not applied

for renewal and has not paid the renewal fees. It

is contended that subsequent registration of FIR

and pendency of same, ipso facto cannot be a

basis for taking the aforesaid stand and the

petitioner would have definitely deposited the

renewal fees along with the application form

subsequently, since he had already applied for

transfer of the same to Patna District.”

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the District Magistrate, Supaul, without considering the reply of

the petitioner, has cancelled the arms license of the petitioner,

bearing arms licenses No.402/2019, by an order dated

07.06.2023, whereafter the petitioner had deposited his arms with

the Sadar Police Station, Supaul on 17.6.2023. The petitioner had

then filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

9/31

Division, Saharsa against the aforesaid order dated 07.06.2023,

which was registered as Arms Appeal Case No.88 of 2023,

however, the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa

has rejected the same, by the impugned order dated 29.11.2023,

without considering the averments made by the petitioner in his

memo of appeal and in a mechanical manner.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

referred to Rule 17 of the Arms Rule, 2016, which is reproduced

herein below:-

“17. Registration of licence with an outside licensing

authority and change of address with existing

licensing authority.-(1) If a person who holds a licence

in Form III changes his place of residence,

permanently, or temporarily for a period of more than

six months, and carries with him the arms covered by

the licence, to a place falling, other than within the

jurisdiction of the existing licensing authority

indicated in the licence, he shall, immediately before

the expiry of a period of six months, send intimation

about such change to the licensing authority of the

place of his new residence and shall on demand,

forthwith produce the licence and the arm or arms to

the new licensing authority by applying in Form B-1

and indicating there in the particulars of his new

residence.

(2) The licensing authority of the new place of

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

10/31

residence of the licensee on receiving an application

in Form B-1 under sub-rule (1), shall within a period

of fifteen days, register the licensee in the NDAL

system whereby the UIN of the licensee shall stand

activated and transferred to its jurisdiction and de-

activated from the records of the original licensing

authority or the last renewing authority as the case

may be and thereupon a new licence book shall be

issued to the licensee and such new authority shall be

the licensing or the renewing authority in relation to

the said licence.

(3) Where the licensee changes his permanent place of

residence within the jurisdiction of the existing

licensing authority, he shall forthwith inform the same

to the licensing authority with the proof of his new

place of residence and if such change has resulted in

change of jurisdiction of police station, along with

information of the police station of his new place of

residence and the licensing authority shall within a

period of fifteen days, register the change of residence

of the licensee in the NDAL system whereby the UIN of

the licensee shall stand activated under the new police

station and de-activated from that of the last police

station.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

impugned order dated 07.06.2023, passed by the District

Magistrate, Supaul is perverse inasmuch as the District

Magistrate, Supaul has failed to consider that charges no.1 and 2

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

11/31

are unfounded, frivolous and do not merit any consideration,

inasmuch as, the District Magistrate, Supaul, vide order

contained in Memo No. 122-2 dt. 28.01.2019 had restored/

renewed the Arms license of the petitioner, after due verification

and after having found that the business/work and residence of

the petitioner was situated at Supaul itself. It is stated that

thereafter, Covid-19 pandemic had arrived, leading to closure of

the work/business of the petitioner at Supaul, hence the petitioner

had applied for transfer of the arms license from Supaul to Patna,

in the year 2022, by filing an application before the District

Magistrate, Patna. As regards charge No.3, pertaining to

pendency of a criminal case bearing Sachiwalaya Patna (SC/ST)

P.S. Case No.13 of 2023 dated 16.03.2023, it is submitted that

the said case was instituted against the petitioner only as a

counter blast to one another FIR bearing Rupaspura P.S. Case

No.18 of 2023, dated 09.01.2023, wherein the petitioner is a

witness and has deposed against the informant of the said

Sachiwalaya Patna P.S. Case No.13 of 2023. It is pointed out that

as far as the said Sachiwalaya Patna (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.13 of

2023 is concerned, neither chargesheet has been filed nor

cognizance has been taken by the Ld. Trial Court, hence mere

institution of an FIR cannot be a ground for cancellation of the

Arms license under Rule 17 of the Arms Rule, 2016. In this

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

12/31

connection, reliance has been placed upon a judgment, rendered

by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, in the case of Harinandan

Singh Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2018 SCC Online

Patna 959, as also the one rendered in the case of Raj Kumar

Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (2019) 4 PLJR 977,

apart from the one rendered by this Court, in the case of Mewa

Lal Choudhary Vs. The Union of India, reported in (2019) 4

PLJR 600. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraphs no.9 to

12 of the judgment rendered in the case of Mewa Lal Choudhary

(supra), herein below:-

“9. This Court further finds that neither charge sheet

has been filed by the police in the pending criminal

case i.e. Sabour P.S. Case No. 35 of 2017 nor the

learned trial court has taken cognizance of the

offence, as has been clearly averred by the petitioner

herein, which stands un-rebutted by the respondents

and, in fact, upon an query having been put by this

Court to the learned counsel for the respondents

regarding the said issue, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents could not deny the fact

that neither the charge sheet has been filed nor the

learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offence

in the aforesaid pending criminal case bearing Sabour

P.S. Case No. 35 of 2017. In this regard, it would be

apt to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

13/31

Raghuram, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609, wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that taking cognizance of

an offence by a Magistrate has a reference to the

application of judicial mind by a Magistrate in

connection with the commission of an offence and only

after cognizance of an offence has been taken by the

Magistrate, it can be said that judicial notice of an

offence has been taken by a Magistrate and the

learned Magistrate has decided to proceed against the

person accused of having committed that offence, as

alleged.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further

referred to a judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64

[Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh], paras No.

34 and 43 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

"34. The argument of the learned Attorney General

that the question of granting sanction for

prosecution of a public servant charged with an

offence under the 1988 Act arises only at the stage

of taking cognizance and not before that is neither

supported by the plain language of the section nor

the judicial precedents relied upon by him. Though,

the term "cognizance" has not been defined either

In the 1988 Act or CrPC, the same has acquired a

definite meaning and connotation from various

judicial precedents. In legal parlance cognizance is

"taking judicial notice by the court of law,

possessing Jurisdiction, on a cause or matter

presented before it so as to decide whether there is

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

14/31

any basis for initiating proceedings and

determination of the cause or matter judicially".

43. Before proceeding further, we would like to add

that at the time of taking cognizance of the offence,

the court is required to consider the averments

made in the complaint or the charge-sheet filed

under Section 173. It is not open for the court to

analyse the evidence produced at that stage and

come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is

made out for proceeding further in the matter.

However, before issuing the process, it is open to

the court to record the evidence and on

consideration of the averments made in the

complaint and the evidence thus adduced, find out

whether an offence has been made out. On finding

that such an offence has been made out the court

may direct the issue of process to the respondent

and take further steps in the matter. If it is a charge-

sheet filed under Section 173 CrPC, the facts stated

by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, on the basis

of the evidence collected during investigation,

would disclose the offence for which cognizance

would be taken by the court. Thus, it is not the

province of the court at that stage to embark upon

and sift the evidence to come to the conclusion

whether or not an offence has been made out".

11. In this regard, this Court would further like to

place reliance upon the judgments rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases, which are

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

15/31

elaborated herein below:-

(i) (1976) 3 SCC 252 [Devarapalli

Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy].

(ii) (2000) 7 SCC 183 [Narsingh Das Tapadia v.

Goverdhan Das Partani]

(iii) (2005) 7 SCC 467 [CREF Finance Ltd. v. Shree

Shanthi Homes].

(iv) (2012) 6 SCC 228 [General Officer

Commanding Rashtriya Rifles v. CBI. As far as this

judgment is concerned, it would be apt to reproduce

herein below paragraph No. 63:-

"63. In broad and literal sense 'cognizance'

means taking notice of an offence as required

under Section 190 Cr.P.C. 'Cognizance'

indicates the point when the court first takes

Judicial notice of an offence. The court not only

applies its mind to the contents of the

complaint/police report, but also proceeds in

the manner as indicated in the subsequent

provisions of Chapter XIV of the Cr.P.C. (Vide

R.R. Charl v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and

State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid."

12. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in a catena of judgments, as aforesaid, this

Court is of the view that since neither the charge sheet

has been filed by the police nor cognizance of the

offence has been taken by the learned Magistrate in

the aforesaid pending Sabour P.S. Case No. 35 of

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

16/31

2017, it cannot be said that a criminal case is pending

as against the petitioner herein so as to warrant

impounding of the passport of the petitioner under

Section 10 (3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967, hence on

this ground as well, the impugned order dated

24.10.2017 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly

set aside.”

7. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the other allegation levelled against the petitioner

is with regard to the petitioner having not deposited fee for

renewal of the arms license even after expiry of the validity

period of the arms license, a charge which is not only trivial in

nature but hyper technical as well, in view of the fact that much

before the expiry of the validity period of the arms license of the

petitioner, i.e. 31.12.2022, the petitioner had already filed an

application before the District Magistrate, Patna, for transfer of

the Arms license from Supaul to Patna, nonetheless, the District

Magistrate, Supaul had issued a show cause notice dt.

13.04.2023, whereafter the license of the petitioner has been

cancelled on 07.06.2023, hence no occasion had arisen for filing

the prescribed fees for renewable of the license, nonetheless, the

petitioner is ready to deposit the fees for the purposes of renewal

of his Arms license.

8. It is next contented by the learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

17/31

petitioner that as far as the last charge regarding violation of Rule

17 of the Arms Rules, 2016, is concerned, the same is not

attracted in the present case, inasmuch as the arms license

granted to the petitioner is valid throughout the State of Bihar

and not limited to any particular district. Nonetheless, it is

submitted that during the Covid-19 pandemic period, the work of

the petitioner at Supaul was discontinued, hence in the year 2022

itself, the petitioner had filed an application, before the District

Magistrate, Patna, for transfer of his Arms licenses from Supaul

to Patna, hence the petitioner had definitely informed the

licensing authority about his new place of residence, thus there is

no violation of Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that providing temporary address cannot be a ground

for cancellation of arms license. In this connection, reliance has

been placed on a judgment, rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of Hariom Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

and Ors., reported in 2018 SCC Online Patna 962. It is also

submitted that arms license can only be cancelled in case the

licensee has contravened any terms and conditions of the arms

licenses and not on any other ground. In this connection reliance

has been placed on a judgment rendered by a learned Division

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

18/31

Bench of this Court in the case of Madhup Kumar Singh Vs.

The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat

1414, paragraphs no.4 to 6 whereof, are reproduced herein

below:-

“4. The main ground for cancellation of the arms

licence was that on subsequent verification, allegedly,

the petitioner/appellant was not found to be residing

at the Saharsa address and as such he had earlier

wrongly obtained the arms licence.

5. Having considered the matter, in our view, there had

been no wrongful disclosure at the time when the arms

licence application was filed. The arms licence

(Annexure- 1) itself shows a clear mention of his

permanent address of Sitamarhi and present address

of Saharsa. There is no allegation that any of the

terms and conditions of the licence, so granted, had

been violated. We are of the considered view that, in

view of the aforesaid two facts, there was no occasion

for the authorities to cancel the arms licence once it

was so granted. Granting of arms licence is in exercise

of statutory powers under the Arms Act. It is for the

authorities to consider the grant or not to grant the

licence. The petitioner/appellant had made a

disclosure about his permanent address and his

present address, the arms licence was granted. It is

only, subsequently, when he wanted the said licence to

be endorsed, as being now permanent resident of

Sitamarhi, deleting his temporary address, this

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

19/31

enquiry and action was taken to cancel the arms

licence. Cancellation of arms licence, already granted,

can only be made on the ground if under the Arms Act,

undisputedly it is not mentioned, the petitioner/

appellant had contravened any terms and conditions

of the grant of arms licence. In our considered view, a

licence so granted could not be cancelled.

6. Thus, the order dated 25.06.2005 of the District

Magistrate, Saharsa, the appellate order dated

11.02.2006 of the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi

Division, Saharsa and the order dated 30.07.2012

passed in C.W.J.C. 7280 of 2006 by the learned Single

Judge cannot be sustained. They are, accordingly, set

aside. This appeal is allowed.”

10. Last but not the least, it has been submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the Arms license of the petitioner

was valid upto 31.12.2022, however the order, cancelling the

Arms license of the petitioner, has been passed only on

07.06.2023. It is stated that it is necessary that a valid Arms

license exists, before any order, cancelling an Arms license, is

passed. In the present case, license had already stood expired

much before the day, the license was cancelled i.e. 07.06.2023,

hence the Order dated 07.06.2023, passed by the District

Magistrate, Supaul, would be deemed to be rejection of the

application filed by the petitioner for transfer/renewal of his

Arms license. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

20/31

juncture has pointed out that before passing of the impugned

order dated 07.06.2023, by the District Magistrate, Supaul, the

District Arms Magistrate, Supaul had submitted a report dated

19.11.2022, wherein it has been stated that the arms license of

the petitioner has been issued for the entire State of Bihar and he

has got no objection in case the Arms license of the petitioner is

transferred/renewed in the Patna district, however, the same was

ignored and subsequently a letter dated 13.04.2023 was written

by the District Magistrate, Supaul to the District Magistrate,

Patna, stating therein that the arms license of the petitioner has

expired on 31.12.2022 and one Sachiwalaya Patna (SC/ST) Case

No.13 of 2023 has been registered, in which the petitioner is an

accused. In fact, the impugned order dated 29.11.2023, has been

passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division,

Saharsa, without taking into consideration the police report

submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shastri Nagar Police

Station dt. 28.08.2023, wherein it has been categorically stated

that there is a serious threat to the life of the petitioner and no

complain has ever been made against the petitioner regarding

misuse of his arms.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has

submitted that the petitioner has obtained arms licenses in his

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

21/31

name by furnishing fictitious address of Supaul as his present

address by furnishing false and fabricated documents in proof of

his address, which have been found to be false upon verification.

Moreover, the petitioner is having several criminal antecedents as

also he is involved in criminal activities. It is also submitted that

show cause was issued to the petitioner by the District

Magistrate, Supaul, whereafter the petitioner had submitted his

reply to the same and only then by a reasoned and a speaking

order dated 07.06.2023, passed by the District Magistrate,

Supaul, the arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled,

hence there is no illegality in the same. In fact, the appellate

order dated 29.11.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner,

Koshi Division, Saharsa also does not suffer from any illegality.

It is next submitted that verification of the residential status of

the petitioner was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Supaul and only then the aforesaid show cause notice dated

13.04.2023 was issued, inter alia levelling five charges upon the

petitioner, as aforesaid, to which the petitioner has not furnished

any satisfactory reply, hence it is submitted that there is no merit

in the present writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has contended

that upon verification, it has been found that the petitioner had

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

22/31

left the house at Supaul, about 3 to 4 years back, however, he had

failed to inform the licensing authority about the same, hence the

same amounts to violation of Rule 17 of the Arms Rule, 2016. It

is stated that a criminal case, bearing Sachiwalaya Patna (SC/ST)

Case No.13 of 2023, has been registered against the petitioner,

hence the petitioner is not liable to possess/retain arms license.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred

to pendency of some other criminal cases qua the petitioner,

however, he has fairly submitted that the same neither forms part

of the charges levelled against the petitioner, in the show cause

notice dated 13.04.2023, nor forms part of the impugned orders

dated 07.06.2023 and 29.11.2023, hence the said issue is not

being pressed in the present case. In response, the learned

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by way of counter

affidavit, no new grounds can be developed nor the impugned

orders can be improved. In this connection, reference has been

made to a judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Bhikhu Bhai Bhithla Bhai Patel Vs. The State of

Gujarat and Ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 144. Nonetheless,

the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said

aspect of the matter has been clarified in paragraph no.22 of the

rejoinder affidavit and in fact none of the said cases can be said

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

23/31

to be pending qua the petitioner herein in legal parlance and as

far as Kotwali P.S. Case No.557 of 2016 is concerned, the

petitioner has already been acquitted, by an order dt. 15.06.2017,

passed by the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the materials on record. The facts leading to the present

case lie in a narrow encompass inasmuch as the petitioner was

granted arms licenses long back in the year 2003, which was

cancelled on 22.09.2009, on account of lodging of Sachiwalaya

P.S. Case No.75 of 2009, however, after the petitioner was

acquitted in the said case by a judgment dated 17.10.2017, the

District Magistrate, Supaul had revived/renewed the arms license

of the petitioner by an order dated 28.01.2019, whereafter the

petitioner had applied for transfer of his arms license from supaul

to Patna, by filing an application, before the District Magistrate,

Patna, in the year 2022, since his work/business at Supaul had

been discontinued on account of Covid-19 pandemic. It appears

that a verification report was called for by the District

Magistrate, Patna, leading to the District Arms Magistrate,

Supaul, having written to the District Arms Magistrate, Patna,

vide letter dated 19.11.2022, granting no objection (NOC) to

renewal of the arms license of the petitioner at Patna District,

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

24/31

however, the said ‘NOC’ was recalled by the District Magistrate,

Supaul, vide letter dated 13.04.2023, on the ground that the

petitioner had not deposited the renewal fees, inasmuch as his

arms license had expired on 31.12.2022 and further on account of

the petitioner having been made an accused in one Sachiwalya

Patna (SC/ST) Case No.13 of 2023.

15. The District Magistrate, Supaul had then issued a show

cause notice dated 13.04.2023 to the petitioner, inter alia

levelling therein five charges, to which the petitioner had filed

his reply on 12.05.2023 and then the District Magistrate, Supaul

had passed the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, cancelling the

arms license of the petitioner, which was challenged by the

petitioner by filing an appeal bearing Arms Appeal Case No. 88

of 2023, however, the same has also stood rejected by an order

dated 29.11.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi

Division, Saharsa.

16. The issues which arise for consideration in the present case

are as follows:-

Issue No. 1:- Whether documentary evidence/rent

agreement was provided by the petitioner while

obtaining the arms licenses in the District of Supaul?

Issue No. 2:- Whether evidence regarding work/

business being carried out by the petitioner was made

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

25/31

available to the licensing authority while obtaining

arms licenses in the District-Supaul?

Issue No. 3:- Whether registration of Sachivalya

Patna (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.13 of 2023, against the

petitioner, would entail cancellation of his Arms

license?

Issue No. 4:- Whether non-payment of the prescribed

fees for renewal of arms license would warrant

cancellation of the Arms license of the petitioner?

Issue No. 5:- Whether Rule 17 of the Arms Rules,

2016 has been violated by the petitioner?

17. As far as issues No. 1 and no. 2 are concerned, this Court

is of the view that the same cannot be raised at this juncture,

since the District Magistrate, Supaul, while restoring/renewing

the license of the petitioner by an order dated 28.01.2019, had

specifically observed therein that the Superintendent of Police,

Supaul vide Letter no. 2763 dt. 25.08.2018, had directed the

Officer-in charge, Supaul Police Station to investigate the

address and ownership of the house of the petitioner at Supaul,

who during the course of enquiry had quizzed one person namely

Hemkant Jha, who told that he knows the petitioner very well

and the petitioner lives temporarily in his house and an affidavit

to the said effect was also submitted. Further, in the same order

dt. 28.01.2019, it has also been mentioned that for issuance of

Arms license in favor of the petitioner in the year 2013, his

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

26/31

application was verified through the Superintendent of Police,

and the Officer-in charge, Karjain had reported that the petitioner

was living in the house of one Ramdeo Mehta, Mohalla- Karjain,

P.S.- Karjain, who is a businessman and a social worker. The

police had also reported that there is no complaint against the

petitioner, thus, it is clear that the police had duly verified the

fact that the petitioner was staying on a temporary basis on rent,

in the premises of one Hemant Jha, who had also given affidavit

to the said effect. The police official had also verified that the

petitioner was staying in the district of Supaul at Karjain Bazar

and for his business purpose he was staying in the house of one

Hemant Jha on a temporary basis, apart from the fact that his

permanent place of address had also been verified and certified

by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, which was found

to be correct. In such view of the matter, the arms license of the

petitioner was restored/renewed by the District Magistrate,

Supaul by an order dated 28.01.2019 in the following terms:-

“

आवेदक के ववरद वजस आरोप मे अनुजवपप वनलंवबप

/ रद

की गई थी वह आरोप नयायालय दारा प्रमावणप नहीं हुआ

एवं आवेदक नयायालय से बरी हो चुके है। वनवास का

सतयापन भी पुवलस अधीकक

,

सुपौल एवं वरीय पुवलस

अधीकक,

पटना दारा वकया गया एवं सही पाया गया।

शसप्र वनयमावली

, 2016

के वनयम

-11

मे ववणरप प्रावधान

के अनपगरप आवेदक सुपौल वजला केप्र अनपगरप अपने

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

27/31

वयवसाय के वलए असथायी रप से वनवास करपे है। अपः

उकप के आलोक मे श्री वसनहा के शसप्र अनुजवपप संखया

-

145/2003

एवं

146/2003

को पतकावलक प्रभाव से

पुनवजरववप वकया जापा है। थानाधयक

,

सुपौल को वनदेश है

वक आवेदक श्री वसनहा के उकप अनुजवपप पर धावरप

शसप्रो को पुवलस अवभरका से मुकप करेगे। लेखावपप एवं

”

संशोवधप ।

Thus, the address of the petitioner and the factum regarding

him carrying business at Supaul has already stood verified twice,

hence the aforesaid charges levelled against the petitioner has got

no substance, thus, Issue No. 1 and No. 2 are decided in favor of

the petitioner and against the respondents and it is held that the

same are not valid and legal grounds, so as to warrant

cancellation of the Arms license of the petitioner.

18. As far as Issue No. 3, i.e regarding pendency of

Sachiwalaya Patna (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.13 of 2023, is

concerned, neither chargesheet has been filed by the police nor

cognizance has been taken by the learned Trial Court, hence this

Court finds that the same would not be a disqualification for the

purposes of holding an Arms license, in view of the well settled

law that in case neither the chargesheet has been filed by the

police nor cognizance of the offences has been taken by the

learned Magistrate, it cannot be said that judicial notice of an

offence has been taken by a Magistrate and the learned

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

28/31

Magistrate has decided to proceed against the person accused of

having committed that offence, as alleged, hence, it cannot be

said that a criminal case is pending as against the petitioner.

Reference in this connection be had to a judgment rendered by

this Court in the case of Mewa Lal Choudhary (supra). Thus,

Issue No. 3 is decided in favor of the petitioner and against the

respondents and it is held that mere pendency of the aforesaid

criminal case, against the petitioner, would not entail cancellation

of the Arms license of the petitioner.

19. Now, coming to Issue No. 4, regarding non-payment of the

prescribed fees for renewal of arms licenses, this Court finds the

said charge to be hyper technical, inasmuch as before the expiry

of the validity period of the arms license of the petitioner, i.e.

31.12.2022, the petitioner had already filed an application before

the District Magistrate, Patna, for transfer of the Arms license

from Supaul to Patna, nonetheless, the District Magistrate,

Supaul had issued a show cause notice dt. 13.04.2023, whereafter

the license of the petitioner was cancelled on 07.06.2023, hence

no occasion had arisen for filing the prescribed fees for

renewable of the license, nonetheless, this Court finds that the

petitioner is ready to deposit the prescribed fees for renewal of

his Arms license. Thus, Issue No. 4 is decided in favor of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

29/31

petitioner and against the respondents.

20. As regards Issue No. 5, i.e whether the petitioner has

violated Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016, it would suffice to

state that the said provision of law is not attracted in the present

case, inasmuch as the arms license, granted to the petitioner, is

valid for the entire State of Bihar and not limited to any

particular District. This Court further finds that during the Covid-

19 pandemic period, the work of the petitioner at Supaul was

discontinued, hence in the year 2022 itself, the petitioner had

filed an application, before the District Magistrate, Patna, for

transfer of his Arms licenses from Supaul to Patna, thus the

petitioner had definitely informed the licensing authority about

his new place of residence, therefore, I find that Rule 17 of the

Arms Rules, 2016, has not been violated by the petitioner.

Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is decided in favor of the petitioner and

against the respondents.

21. Thus, considering in totality, the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case, including the materials available on

record as also taking note of the averments put forth by the

parties, this Court finds that Arms license, already granted, can

be cancelled only if the licensee contravenes any terms and

conditions of the grant of arms license, however, in the present

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

30/31

case neither the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, passed by the

District Magistrate, Supaul nor the appellate order dated

29.11.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi

Division, Saharsa, mentions about the petitioner having

contravened any of the terms and conditions of the grant of Arms

license, hence on this ground alone the impugned orders dated

07.06.2023 and 29.11.2023 are fit to be quashed. This aspect of

the matter stands squarely covered by a judgment rendered by the

learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhup

Kumar Singh (supra). As far as the charges levelled against the

petitioner, vide show cause notice dated 13.04.2023, which

forms the basis for passing the aforesaid impugned orders dated

07.06.2023 and 29.11.2023, are concerned, the same have been

found by this Court to be without any substance, as can be culled

out from the discussion made by this Court in the preceding

paragraphs, hence, even on merits, the order dated 07.06.2023,

passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul and the appellate order

dated 29.11.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi

Division, Saharsa in Arms Appeal Case No. 88 of 2023 are not

sustainable in the eyes of law, hence are liable to be quashed.

22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and for the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2024 dt.08-10-2024

31/31

07.06.2023, passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul and the

one dated 29.11.2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner,

Koshi Division, Saharsa are set aside.

23. The writ petition stands allowed.

Saurav/-

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 22.07.2024

Uploading Date 08.10.2024

Transmission Date N/A