The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a licence-holder’s subsequent failure to establish an “imminent threat” to his life and property, by itself, will not constitute sufficient ground for cancellation of an arms licence, when it was initially granted after consideration of his eligibility.
Setting aside the orders cancelling an arms licence and dismissing the statutory appeal, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari remanded the matter to Jind District Magistrate for a fresh decision in accordance with law after considering all relevant aspects and affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
The court was dealing with a petition challenging the District Magistrate’s March 21, 2023, order cancelling the petitioner’s arms licence on the grounds of alleged misuse of the licensed weapon, irresponsible and careless behaviour, and absence of an imminent threat to his life and property. The petitioner had challenged that order in a statutory appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on June 26, 2024.
‘Imminent threat’ had to be considered when licence was granted
On examining the District Magistrate’s order, Justice Tiwari found that it was “primarily based on two grounds”: first, that the petitioner had failed to produce evidence showing any imminent threat to his life and property necessitating possession of a licensed weapon; and second, registration of an FIR concerning alleged misuse of the licensed weapon.
The court held: “So far as the issue of imminent threat to the life and property of the petitioner is concerned, the same must have been considered by the authority concerned at the time of issuance of the arms licence, and only after finding him eligible, the arms licence was issued to him”
Justice Tiwari added the petitioner’s subsequent failure to establish that he was facing any imminent threat to his life and property, by itself, would not constitute a sufficient ground for cancellation of his arms licence, particularly when the same had already been granted upon consideration of his eligibility.
“This aspect has not been considered by the District Magistrate in its correct perspective. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that interference with the impugned order is warranted,” Justice Tiwari noted.
Alleged misuse was subject to trial
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had handed over his licensed weapon to another person, who allegedly used it during a wedding ceremony by openly firing in the air and making a video of the act, which was thereafter made viral on social media.
The State also submitted that there was a growing tendency amongst youngsters to misuse weapons during wedding ceremonies. “Persons like the petitioner cannot be encouraged by permitting them to retain arms licences and, in order to curb such tendency, strict action is required to be taken, which has accordingly been taken in the present case,” the State counsel contended.
Justice Tiwari asserted: “It is also not in dispute that nobody was injured in the said incident. The trial arising out of the said FIR is still pending. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are yet to be established by the prosecution by leading evidence”.
Petitioner offered undertaking
The petitioner’s counsel, meanwhile, submitted he was ready to furnish an undertaking that he would not violate any of the terms and conditions of the arms licence in future and would not permit anyone else to use the licensed weapon.
The petitioner also argued that the issue of imminent threat to his life and property had been considered when the licence was granted and that, although an FIR had been registered, he had not been convicted in that case.
