CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 8 S.C.R. 892 
' 
A 
CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH 
< 
v. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3243 of 2009) 
B 
MAY 5, 2009 
[S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
) . • 
Arm.s Act, 1959/Arms Rules, 1962: 
..._ 
c 
Seciion 3, 17/Schedule Ill - Arms licence - Issue of -
Two licences issued to sports person engaged in the sport of 
shooting - Purchase and subsequent sale of arms by the 
sports person - Cancellation of both licences -:- Appellate 
authority restored one licence - On remand, appellate 
[) authority directed cancellation of both licences - Writ Petition 
~-
thereagainst dismissed by High Court - On appeal, Held: 
Appellant guilty of suppresio veri as also suggestio falsi -
In view of the frequency of transactions, the statutory 
authorities were justified in canceling the licences - However, 
E the appellate is requested to consider grant of any licence so 
as to enable the appellant to carry out his sporting activities 
on such terms and conditions as are permissible in law, 
1 
provided an application is made in accordance with Jaw. 
The appellant is engaged in the sport of shooting 
F since 1988 and has been participating in the shooting 
events at national and international levels. He was 
granted two licences for revolver/pistol and gun/rifle. 
Between 2001 and 2005, on 26 occasions he had 
imported various arms and cartridges. 
(i 
Appellant was issued a show cause notice on the 
ground that he had transferred weapons imported from 
abroad thereby misusing his licences. Appellant replied 
that the said transactions were entered into only upon 
H 
89?. 
CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY 893 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. 
obtaining the requisite permission from the licensing A 
authority. He had also stated that as accuracy was not 
to be achieved through some arms, he had to sell them 
off to buy better arms. However, the licences came to be 
cancelled. On appeal, the appellate authority upheld 
cancellation order in respect of one licence, but directed 
B 
restoration of another licence. Appellant filed a writ 
petition and the High Court remitted the matter to the 
appellate authority on the premise that no reason had 
been assigned as to why one licence was denied to the 
appellant. The appellate authority passed an order c 
canceling both the licences of the appellant. Writ petition 
against the said order was dismissed by the High Court. 
Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. In terms o, Schedule Ill of the Arms Rules, 
1962 licences are granted in 22 different forms and for 
different purposes as specified therein. Indisputably, 
grant of licences under Form Ill is for purpose of self-use. 
Appellant himself has contended that he intended to use 
E 
the arms and ammunition as a sportsman. [Para 16] [905-
A-8] 
2. There cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever 
that sale and purchase of arms and ammunition by a 
F 
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. [Para 17] [905-C-D] 
G 
3. 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 c~ntended that he had imported arms 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R. 
A only once. He, in fact, had imported arms at least on 26 
occasions. He, therefore, is guilty of suppresio veri as also 
suggestio falsi. [Para 18] [905-G-H; 906-A] 
Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 
B Mumbai (2007) 6 SCC 329, relied on. 
"Black's Law Dictionary" (5th edition), referred to. 
4. It also appears from the record that the appellant 
had imported a large number of air rifles and air pistols 
c 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. [Para 20] [906-0-E] 
5.1. It may be true that the appellant had obtained 
D 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 fo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.