CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 892

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH

Case summary

CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR.pdf

Judgment text

[2009) 8 S. C. R. 892 ' 10. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the State Government in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The Home Minister of the Government of Maharashtra, who was the designated appellate authority, by an order dated 17th October 2005, while upholding the order of cancellation in respect of one licence, directed restoration of Licence No. B0-50A/October/ 90. ,.. ;' 11. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay. Having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority was not a speaking one, the Division Bench of the High Court, by reason of the order dated 17th January 2006, set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the appellate authority on the premise that no reason had been assigned as to why one licence was being denied to the appellant. By reason of an ..

t order dated 19th June 2006, the appellate authority, however, directed cancellation of both the arms licences of the appellant and thereby confirmed the order dated 04th April 2005 passed by the respondent no. 1. 12. A writ petition was filed by the appellant thereagainst which, by reason of the impugned judgment, has been dismissed. _, "' 13. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the respondent no. 1, the appellate authority as also the High Court committed a serious error insofar as they failed to take into consideration that purchase and sale of arms being not prohibited under the conditions of licence and the transactions having been carried out upon obtaining permission of the licensing authority, appellant cannot be said to have violated the conditions of .. licence.

It was urged that the appellant being a sportsperson, which has not been denied or disputed, should have been allowed to have his arms so as to enable him to participate in the National and State level events. ·f. i 14. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend: i. Overuse of weapons cannot be said to be a genuine justification by the appellant for frequent sale or purchase. ii. Frequent sale of licences is contrary to the letter )> and spirit of the licences granted to the appellant. • iii. Appellant has resorted to suppresio veri and suggestio falsi inasmuch as he has contended in Ground 'C' of the petition that he was required to purchase new weapons so as to enable him to participate and perform better in competitions as the accuracy o~ a weapon gets worn off with use and it is for that reason that he is required t. to sell his old weapon and purchase new ones.

In reply to the show cause notice, however, he wrongly contended that he never made any purchase from any foreign country as there are materials on record to show that he had imported fire-arms, cartridges etc. at least 26 times. 15. The Arms Act, 1959 was enacted tc consolidate and amend the law relating to arms and ammunition. ~ Indisputably, appellant applied for and was granted licences in terms of Section 17 of the Act. Clause (d) of subsection (3) of Section 17 of the Act provides that if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened, the same may either be suspended for a particular period or revoked/ cancelled. He was granted the licences as per Form Ill of Schedule 111 of the Arms Rules, 1962 which is for the purpose of acquisition, possession and carrying of arms or ammunition for sport/protection/display/crop protection and property protection.

Licences, however, in Forms XII and XIII of the said Schedule are granted for the purposes of storing, selling and transferring of arms and ammunition of certain categories. · i 1 16. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 41 and 44 of the Act framed rules known as Arms Rules, 1962. In terms of Schedule Ill of the said Rules, licences are granted in 22 different forms and for different purposes as specified therein. Indisputably, grant of licences under Form Ill is for the i . r purpose of self-use. Appellant himself has contended that he intended to use the arms and ammunition as a sportsman. 17. There cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that sale and purchase of arms and ammunition by a licencee per se is not prohibited.

But having regard to the provisions of the said Act and the purport and object for which different types of licences are granted for different purposes, there cannot be any ~ doubt whatsoever that a licencee cannot be permitted to do something indirectly which he cannot do directly. 18. Insofar as the contention that the appellant was guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi is concerned, we may note that the Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition) defines suggestio falsi as, 'suggestion or representation of that which is false; false representation. To recite in a deed that a will was ~ duly executed, when it was not, is suggestio falsi; and to • conceal from the heir that the will was not duly executed is 1 suppressio veri'. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.

Although it may not be very accurate or apt but suppressio veri would amount to concealment, suggestio falsi would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. [See : Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (2007) 6 sec 329 para 71]. ,. _,.. We have noticed hereinbefore that during the period appellant had been holding his licences, he sold arms at least 39 times. In his show cause as also ground 'G' of the Special Leave Petition, the appellant had contended that he had ' imported arms only once. He, in fact, had imported arms at least ·~ on 26 occasions. He, therefore, in our opinion, is guilty of suppresio veri as also suggestio fa/si. 19. Licence(s) under the Act is/are granted for specific purpose(s). Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act states that no person, other than a person referred to in sub-section (3), can have in his possession or carry at any time more than three ). > firearms.

As indicated hereinbefore, by reason of the aforementioned notification dated 25th June 1982, only certain categories of sportspersons were permitted to acqμire and possess more than three firearms for the purpose of taking part in shooting competitions. Appellant was in possession of six arms, three in each category under two different licences. Indisputably he was permitted to possess five rifles and four revolvers including one of the prohibited category for the f'. ' purpose of sport shooting. 20. It also appears from the record that the appellant had imported a large number of air rifles and air pistols although he had not been participating in the events requiring use of the said weapons. So is the case with the toy weapons which were of no use to him as a sportsman. 21.

It may be true that the appellant had obtained permission before transferring the weapons in favour of third • parties but, indisputably, as he had entered into a large number of transactions, the licensing authority was entitled to infer that he had in effect and substance not been purchasing the same for his own use which was the sine qua non for grant of licence. From the aforementioned chart it would appear that on a large number of occasions he had sold the weapons only after a few days of purchase. It is, therefore, difficult for us to ~appreciate the contention of Mr. Dave that the appellant had to sell the weapons only because upon practice he had found that the accuracy level of the weapons had deteriorated. There is another aspect of the matter which also cannot be lost sight COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. [S. 8. SINHA, J. ] i" of.

It may be one thing to say that he had been purchasing weapons manufactured by the companies for which he had no occasion to test the efficacy of the weapons concerned, but even according to the appellant himself he had been purchasing second hand weapons. Before entering into a transaction of weapons in second hand, it is expected, that the 8 .. purchaser would take all precautions to see that the same would . ,I be of some use to him. / 22. We, therefore, keeping in view the frequency of the transactions, are of the view that the statutory authorities were justified in passing the impugned orders cancelling the licences. 23. Ordinarily in a case of this nature, we would have remitted the matter back to the licensing authority so as to enable the appellant to satisfy it with regard to his bonafide or ~ otherwise in respect of the transactions, but, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the same would be a futile exercise.

This Court, as is well known, would not pass any order which would make a statutory authority to comply with only useless formalities. We would, however, request the appellate authority to consider the questiot'l as to whether the appellant, being a sportsman, can be granted any licence so as to enable him to carry out his ~ sporting activities. Such licence may be granted on such terms " and conditions as are permissible in law, provided that an application is made in accordance with the law. 24. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. No costs. G. N. Appeal dismissed.