1 CGHC010310552026 2026:CGHC:35513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4181 of 2026 Mo. Ibrahim Memon S/o Late Yusuf Memon Aged About 58 Years R/o Sadar Bazar Champa Police Station- Champa District- Champa- Janjgir (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector And District Magistrate District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Additional District Magistrate District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer Police Station- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For State/Respondents : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 12.08.2026 1 By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, whereby the petitioner’s two Arms Licences, bearing Licence No. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.13 10:26:19 +0530 2 J/427/2002 dated 06.08.2002 and the licence pertaining to 12 Bore DBBL Gun, were revoked on the ground of registration of Crime Nos. 427/2019 and 428/2019 against him for offences under Sections 294, 506, 323, 295-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner submits that, during the course of trial, he was acquitted of the offences under the Arms Act and the other serious charges vide judgments dated 13.10.2023 and 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, and thereafter submitted an application before the competent authority seeking restoration/reinstatement of his Arms Licences, which has remained pending. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment dated 17.10.2023, wherein the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the learned trial Court having specifically found that the prosecution failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the alleged recovery and possession of the prohibited weapon. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ of certiorari/mandamus setting aside/quashing the cancellation order, page 3 no./2348/License/2021 Janjgir dated 10.02.2021 passed by respondent no 3. 10.3 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore and renew Arms License No J/427/2002 and return the surrendered weapons deposited at police station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 10.4 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law. 10.5 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a lawful and valid Arms Licence holder since 06.08.2002 and had been holding two Arms Licences for a period of more than 18 years without there being any allegation of misuse, misuse of ammunition, breach of any condition of the licence, or any complaint whatsoever against him. It is submitted that the petitioner was holding Arms Licence No. J/427/2002 dated 06.08.2002 in respect of a .32 revolver and another valid licence in respect of a 12 Bore DBBL Gun. According to learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner had maintained a clean record throughout the period during which the aforesaid licences remained operative and had never used or displayed the licensed arms in any manner 4 prejudicial to public peace or safety. It is submitted that the aforesaid licences were subsequently revoked by the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa, vide order dated 10.02.2021, solely on the basis of the registration of Crime Nos. 427/2019 and 428/2019 against the petitioner in connection with the incidents arising out of political rivalry during the Municipal Elections of 2019. 3 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Crime No.427/2019 and Crime No.428/2019 were registered at Police Station Champa for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 295-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and, after investigation, charge-sheets were filed and the petitioner faced trial before the competent criminal Court. It is submitted that the revocation of the petitioner’s Arms Licences was founded upon the pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases and the report/recommendation of the police authorities, without there being any independent material demonstrating that the petitioner had misused his licensed arms or that the continuance of the licences posed any actual threat to public peace, public safety or tranquility. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, even during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner duly complied with the direction of the authorities and, on 19.02.2021, surrendered the licensed arms before the Station House Officer, Police Station Champa, which were thereafter retained by the police authorities. 5 4 It is next submitted that the criminal proceedings subsequently culminated in findings substantially favourable to the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, vide judgment dated 13.10.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, in Criminal Case No.144/2021, the petitioner was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 295-A, 294, 506 Part-II and 323 of the IPC. It is further submitted that, vide judgment dated 17.10.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, in Criminal Case No.143/2021, the petitioner was specifically acquitted of the charges under Section 506 Part-II, Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, though he was convicted only for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Learned Senior Counsel places particular reliance upon the findings recorded in the judgment dated 17.10.2023, wherein, after examining the prosecution witnesses, the recovery memo and the electronic evidence/video footage, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was in possession of the alleged iron sword-like weapon. The learned trial Court specifically noticed material inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged seizure and further observed that the electronic evidence did not corroborate the prosecution version regarding possession of the alleged iron weapon. 6 Consequently, the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 5 Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the very foundation on which the Arms Licences were revoked was the criminal implication of the petitioner in Crime Nos.427/2019 and 428/2019 and, particularly, the allegation relating to possession of an alleged prohibited weapon. Once the petitioner has faced trial and has been acquitted of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the continued refusal to reconsider the revocation of his Arms Licences, without examining the effect of such acquittal, is wholly unjustified. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter approached the competent authority by submitting a representation dated 28.05.2024, specifically bringing to its notice the judgments of acquittal and requesting restoration/reinstatement of the revoked Arms Licences. The petitioner also deposited the requisite Government fee of Rs.2,500/- on 09.07.2024 through SBI Challan No.2086/2007556518 and requested renewal/restoration of the licences. However, despite the criminal proceedings having concluded and despite the petitioner having approached the competent authority, no effective decision has been taken on his request. 6 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the statutory scheme of the Arms Act, 1959, particularly Section 17(3) and Section 17(7) 7 thereof, requires the competent authority to examine the circumstances justifying suspension or revocation of an Arms Licence and also contemplates the consequence of the conviction being set aside or otherwise ceasing to operate. It is argued that the competent authority cannot mechanically continue the revocation merely because an FIR or criminal case had once been registered against the licence holder, particularly when the trial has culminated in acquittal of the petitioner of the offence under the Arms Act. It is submitted that there must be an independent and rational assessment as to whether the petitioner’s continued possession of the licensed arms is likely to endanger public peace or public safety. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner ever misused his licensed revolver or 12 Bore DBBL Gun, nor is there any material demonstrating that the petitioner’s possession of such licensed arms has at any point resulted in disturbance of public peace or safety. 7 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner had also approached this Court earlier seeking consideration of his application in the light of Section 17(7) of the Arms Act and the proviso thereto. This Court, while disposing of the said proceedings, did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, but directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with the aforesaid statutory provision and to pass an appropriate order within the stipulated period. It is submitted that, despite the said direction 8 and despite the petitioner having already placed the judgments of acquittal and other relevant documents before the competent authority, the matter has remained pending for an inordinately long period. According to learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner cannot be left remediless indefinitely when the criminal proceedings which constituted the basis for revocation have already culminated and the petitioner has specifically sought restoration of his licences. 8 Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the competent authority was required to objectively consider the petitioner’s representation in the light of the subsequent judgments dated 13.10.2023 and 17.10.2023, particularly the acquittal under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the petitioner’s long history as a licence holder since 06.08.2002 without any allegation of misuse, the surrender of the arms pursuant to the revocation order, and the absence of any material indicating that restoration of the licences would prejudice public peace or safety. It is contended that mere registration or pendency of criminal cases, by itself, cannot constitute a perpetual ground for continuing the revocation of an Arms Licence, particularly when the criminal Court has examined the evidence and acquitted the petitioner of the Arms Act offence. Learned Senior Counsel accordingly submits that the competent authority ought to have considered and decided the petitioner’s application within a reasonable period and in accordance with Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959, rather than keeping the same pending indefinitely. 9 9 Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the representation/application submitted by the petitioner for restoration of the Arms Licences would be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is submitted that the competent authority would examine the effect of the judgments of acquittal as well as the provisions contained in Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959 and shall pass an appropriate order within a reasonable period. 10 I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned State Counsel and have perused the material available on record. 11 The undisputed position emerging from the record is that the petitioner had been holding the aforesaid Arms Licences since 06.08.2002, and the licences came to be revoked vide order dated 10.02.2021, principally on account of his implication in Crime Nos. 427/2019 and 428/2019. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner surrendered the licensed arms pursuant to the said order and that the criminal proceedings subsequently culminated in judgments dated 13.10.2023 and 17.10.2023. In the latter judgment, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, with the learned trial Court recording a categorical finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged possession and recovery of the prohibited weapon beyond reasonable doubt. 10 12 For ready reference, Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959, along with the proviso thereto, is reproduced hereinbelow:— “17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.—*** (7) Where the person whose licence has been suspended or revoked under this section is acquitted in any criminal proceeding which formed the basis for such suspension or revocation, the licensing authority may, on an application made by such person, restore the licence, subject to such conditions, if any, as it may deem fit to impose: Provided that where the conviction of such person, which formed the basis for such suspension or revocation, is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation of the licence shall stand cancelled and the licence shall be restored, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed.” 13 In view of the aforesaid statutory provision, this Court is not required, in the present proceedings, to determine as to whether the petitioner is, as a matter of right, entitled to restoration of the Arms Licences. The statutory discretion vested in the competent authority under the Arms Act has to be exercised by the authority itself upon consideration of all relevant circumstances. However, once the criminal proceedings which constituted the basis for the revocation have culminated in acquittal, including acquittal of the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the subsequent 11 judgments constitute relevant and material circumstances which cannot be ignored by the licensing authority while considering the petitioner’s request for restoration of the licences. The statutory mandate under Section 17(7), read with the proviso thereto, therefore requires due consideration of the effect of such acquittal by the competent licensing authority. 14 It is also relevant that the petitioner had already approached the competent authority by way of representation dated 28.05.2024, followed by deposit of the requisite Government fee of Rs.2,500/- on 09.07.2024, seeking restoration/renewal of the licences. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that, despite the passage of considerable time, the said representation has not been decided. In the circumstances, the appropriate course would be to direct the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s pending application/representation in accordance with law, particularly in the light of Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959 and the proviso thereto, as also the subsequent judgments of acquittal. 15 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for restoration or renewal of the Arms Licences, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation/application by taking into consideration the judgments dated 13.10.2023 and 17.10.2023, the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, his antecedent period of holding the Arms Licences since 06.08.2002, 12 the circumstances in which the licences were revoked, and all other relevant material available on record. The competent authority shall specifically examine the applicability and effect of Section 17(7) and the proviso thereto in the facts of the present case and shall thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner to restoration/renewal of the Arms Licences, and the competent authority shall take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law. 17 With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh