JUDGMENT
Shambhu Prasad Singh, J.
1. The petitioner is the proprietor of Messrs. Janta Arms Stores at Gaya and is a dealer in arms and ammunitions. For that purpose, he possessed a licence from the year 1959. The relevant licence with which we have to deal with was in Form XIII. The licence was renewed from time to time till the end of the year 1969. When the petitioner deposited the necessary fee for renewal of his licence for the year 1970. it was not renewed and the District Magistrate, Gaya (respondent No. 4) by his memo dated the 23rd May, 1970 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) asked the petitioner to explain certain allegations against his shop. The petitioner submitted his show cause (Annexure 2). By his order dated the 28th December, 1970 (Annexure 3). respondent No, 4 refused to renew the petitioner’s licence and cancelled it. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Commissioner, Patna Division (respondent No. 3) who by his order dated the 26th May. 1971 (Annexure 6) upheld the order of the Collector and dismissed the appeal. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the orders of respondents 4 and 3 as contained in Annexures 3 and 6 respectively.
2. There were five charges against the petitioner, but respondent No. 4 found only three of them proved or established. They are
(i) The petitioner failed to inform the nearest police station of an accident of firing in his shop, which took place on 1st January, 1969. resulting in an injury to a boy-servant of his and thus contravened Condition No. 19 of his licence;
(ii) He supplied gun powder to two licencees of B. L. guns and thus contravened Condition No. 10 of his licence; and
(iii) He purchased a gun without proper manufacturing mark, as required lander Rule 25 read with Section 8 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the petitioner before respondent No. 4 was that the injury caused to the boy was a minor one and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to inform the police about it and that the matter was reported to the police who instituted a case and, ultimately, submitted final report which was accepted by the Subdivisional Magistrate. Therefore, according to him. Condition No. 19 of the licence was not violated. With regard to the violation of Condition No. 10 of the licence, his case was that he obtained the necessary declarations from the purchasers before selling gun powder and, therefore, that con- dition too was not violated. Lastly, as to the purchase of a gun without proper manufacturing mark, he submitted that the seller-licencee Matuk Singh had obtained an order from the District Magistrate for selling his gun. The petitioner being authorised to purchase a gun by the proper authority, purchased it in good faith. According to him. there was no violation of any section of the Arms Act or the Rules framed thereunder by the said purchase.
4. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that respondents Nos. 4 and 3 were not correct in not accepting the explanations of the petitioner. He urged that the allegations against the petitioner did not amount to violation of any condition of his licence or of any provision of the Arms Act or the Rules made thereunder.
5. Condition No. 19 of the licence of the petitioner reads as follows:
Any accident, fire or explosion occurring within the premises in column 3 which is attended with loss of human life or serious injury to persons or property shall be reported at once by the licencee to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest police station having jurisdiction over his place of business, factory or shop as well as to the Inspector of Explosives of the circle concerned.
Admittedly, the boy who was injured in the accident did not .die. As it appears from Annexure 1 itself, the injury caused to the boy was a minor one. The final report submitted by the police (Annexure 4) also shows that the injury was found to be simple in nature. Condition No. 19 is attracted only if the accident is attended with loss of human life or serious injury to persons or property. There being no loss of human life or no serious injury to any person or property, there was no obligation on the petitioner to inform the Officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station having jurisdiction over his place of business about the accident. On the own case of the State, as accepted by respondents 4 and 3, Condition No. 19 of the licence cannot be held to have been violated and the ground of violation of this condition taken by respondent No, 4 for cancelling the licence of the petitioner is non-existent.
6. I next take up for consideration the charge against the petitioner that he purchased a gun not having proper manufacturing mark from one Matuk Singh. In my opinion, purchase by the petitioner did not amount to violation of any provision of the Arms Act or the Rules made thereunder. Section 8 of the Arms Act reads as follows1
8. (1) No person shall obliterate, remove, alter or forge any name, number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown on a fire-arm.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer any fire-arm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturer’s number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon in a manner approved by the Central Government.
(3) Whenever any person has in Ms possession any fire-arm without such name, number or other identification mark or on which such name, number or other identification mark has been obliterated, removed, altered or forged, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that he has obliterated, removed, altered or forged that name, number or other identification mark:
Provided that in relation to a person who has in his possession at the commencement of this Act any fire-arm without such name, number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon, the provisions of this sub-section shall not take effect until after the expiration of one year from such commencement.
It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner himself obliterated, removed, altered or forged the identification mark stamped on the gun which he purchased. Admittedly, he has not sold or transferred the gun as yet. Therefore, he has not violated Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8. “It has been submitted by learned Government Advocate that as the petitioner was in possession of the gun which did not bear proper manufacturer’s mark, under Sub-section (3) of Section 8, it should be presumed that it was he who obliterated, removed, altered or forged that mark and. therefore. is guilty of violating pub-sectinn ni of Section 8. The case of the respondents was that there was no mark on the gun at the time of purchase itself. Therefore, on that case itself, the petitioner has been able to prove the contrary that he did not obliterate, remove, altti or forge the mark. He cannot, therefore, be said to have been guilty of violation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Arms Act.
7. The relevant part of Rule 25 of the Arms Rules framed under the Arm Act is as follows :
Identification marks on fire-arms (1) A manufacturer of fire-arras shall get every fire-arm manufactured by him stamped so as to show distinctly
(a) the maker’s name and registered trade-mark if any;
(b) the serial number of the weapon as entered in his register and the year of stamping; and
(c) proof-mark,
x x x x
x x x x
(2) When an imported fire-arm kept for sale by a dealer does not bear the manufacturer’s name, such distinguishing mark of the importer as allotted by the State Government shall be engraved on the barrel (adjacent to the number, if any, existing thereon) and on other parts as shown in column (21 of the Table under sub-rule (1); if a barrel bears more than one number, the distinguishing mark shall be affixed to the number, appearing on the original invoice. When the manufacturer’s number appears only op. the trigger guard or other replaceable part, that number shall be engraved on the parts shown in column (3) of that Table.
(3) A person, who has in his possession any fire-arm which does not bear distinctly a manufacturer’s name.- number or other identification mark as mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall get the identification mark stamped on the fire-arm consisting of
(a) such district letters as may be prescribed for the purpose by’ the State Government;
(b) serial number of the possession licence in the Arms Register of the licensing authority concerned or. in respect of the fire-arms in possession of a. person exempt from the obligation to take out licence for their possession, the letters ‘Ex’, and
(c) the year of stamping.
in that order and in the following manner1
1. Rifles …… On the barrel and breech
2. Guns and pistols …… On the barrel
3. Revolvers …… On the breech. and cylinder.
According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner has contravened sub-rule (3) of the Arms Rules by not getting identification mark sLamped on the gun which he purchased from Matuk Singh. The sub-rule does no), fix any time-limit for getting the identification mark stamped. Section 8 (2) of the Arms Act prohibits sale or transfer of any fire-arm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturer’s number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon m a manner approved by the Central Government. From Rule 25 (3) of the Arms Rules read together with Section 8 (2) of the Arms Act, it is manifest that a person cannot ordinarily be held to have violated Rule 25 (3) or Section 8 (2) if he gets the identification mark stamped before the sale or transfer.
8. The petitioner’s case further before respondent No. 4 was that he sent an information of the purchase of this gun to the Arms Office immediately after his purchase. That fact has not been found incorrect in the District Magistrate’s order or refuted here. It is. therefore, not also possible to say that the petitioner made inordinate delay in complying with the provisions of Rule 25 (3) of the Arms Rules. In my opinion, therefore, this ground aiso was nonexistent against the petitioner and his licence could not be cancelled on that score.
9. Lastly, I take up for consideration the question of violation of Condition No. 10 of the licence. Arguments have been advanced at length on the question whether a person holding licence for B. L. guns can possess gun powder for re-filling cartridges, when it is not mentioned in his licence that he can possess gun powder for that purpose. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on the decision of Thomas, C. J. of Oudh Chief Court in Ram Saroman Singh v. King-Emperor 47 Cri LJ 310 : AIR 1946 Oudh 124. I do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the view taken in that decision is correct or not, because even assuming that the licencee of a B. L. gun is entitled to possess gun powder for re-filling cartridges, though his licence does not mention that he can possess gun powder for that purpose, in the instant case, it appears that the petitioner has violated Condition No. 10 of his licence. Condition No. 10 is as follows:
He shall not sell or transfer ammunition to any person, licensed to possess or carry arms, without his first obtaining a written certificate from such person to the effect that, with the quantity of ammunition proposed to be purchased by him. the total quantity of ammunition in his possession will not exceed the maximum quantity which he is entitled to possess at any one time or his total allowance for the year:
Provided that he shall not in any case sell or transfer to any person any quantity of ammunition in excess of the maximum which may be fixed by the Central Government for such person or which is endorsed on such person’s licence.
It is admitted by the petitioner that he sold 4 lbs. of gun powder to the holder of licence No. 932 and the licencee of that licence could possess only 50 cartridges at a time. According to Annexure 10 filed by the petitioner himself. 2 Lbs. of Black Gun powder is required for loading 100 rounds of 12 bore cartridges. Thus on petitioner’s own case, gun powder required for loading 50 rounds of 12 bore cartridges would be 1 1/4 Lbs. only. The petitioner, therefore, should not have sold to the licencee 4 Lbs. of gun powder at a time. Reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on the words “or his total allowance for the year” in the condition. In my opinion, Condition No. 10 did not authorise the petitioner to sell at a time ammunitions more than the purchaser licencee could possess at any one time. This is the only reasonable interpretation of the condition otherwise the words “at any one time” in the condition will have no meaning. In my opinion, on account of the words “or his total allowance for the year.” even ammunition, the licencee can possess at any one time, cannot be supplied if as a result thereof the total supply in the year exceeds the licencee’s total allowance for the year. For instance, if a licencee who is entitled to possess 50 cartridges at a time and 200 cartridges in the year, cannot be supplied more than 25 cartridges thereafter within the year. It does not mean that even though he has already purchased 175 cartridges in the year, he may be supplied thereafter with 200 cartridges. Reliance was also placed on the proviso to the condition. The proviso does not helo the petitioner. Rather it supports the view which I have taken as to the interpretation of the main Part of Condition No, 10. The maximum which is endorsed >on a purchaser’s licence is not to be exceeded according to the proviso, in case of the licencee to whom the petitioner sold gun powder cannot be more than 50 cartridges. The proviso, therefore, does not justify the sale by the petitioner of 4 Lbs. of gun pow.der. The ground of violation of Condition No. 10 was, therefore, available to respondent No. 4 for cancelling the licence of the petitioner.
10. The next question arises what order should be oassed in the case. I am not in a position to say what respondent No, 4 would have done, if he would have found that two of the conditions were non-existent but only one was available to him. It may be that in such circumstances he may not have cancelled the licence. Therefore. the application of the petitioner is allowed. The orders of respondents 4 and’ 3, as contained in Annexures 3 and 6 respectively are quashed. The matter is sent back to respondent No. 4 for reconsideration of the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made earlier. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Shivesiiwar Prasad Sinha, J.
11. I agree.