Holding

Licences granted under Form III are for self‑use; the appellant’s frequent purchase‑sale transactions and false statements constitute misuse, justifying cancellation of both licences.

Summary

The appellant, a renowned sport shooter, was granted two arms licences (revolver/pistol and rifle) under Form III of the Arms Rules for personal use. Between 1996 and 2005 he bought and sold firearms on 39 occasions and imported arms on 26 occasions, prompting a show‑cause notice alleging misuse of the licences. The licensing authority cancelled both licences; the appellate authority initially restored one licence but later cancelled both, a decision upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a Form III licence, intended for self‑use, can be used for frequent purchase‑sale transactions and whether the appellant’s false statements amounted to suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The Court held that the frequent transactions indicated the licences were not being used for personal sporting purposes, the appellant was guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, and therefore the statutory authorities were justified in cancelling both licences, though it suggested the appellate authority may consider granting a suitable licence for sporting activities if applied for. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The scope of a Form III arms licence under the Arms Act and whether it permits frequent purchase and sale of firearms.
Whether the appellant’s conduct amounts to suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, justifying licence cancellation.
Whether the licensing authority can cancel licences on the ground of misuse for purposes other than self‑use.
Whether the appellant is entitled to any licence to continue his sporting activities.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 17(3), s. 3

Subjects

Arms Actlicence cancellationsports shootingsuppressio verisuggestio falsiself‑use licenceimport of firearmslicensing authority

Judgment

[2009) 8 S.C.R. 892

'<
A CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH
v.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3243 of 2009)
MAY 5, 2009
B
[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,
the appellate is requested to consider grant of any licence so
E
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 for his own use which was the
E sine qua non for grant of licence. [Para 21) [906-E-F]

5.2. On a large number of occasions he had sold the
weapons only after a few days of purchase. It is,
therefore, difficult to appreciate the contention that the
F 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 of. It may be one
thing to say that he had been purchasing weapons
G 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,
H
CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY 895
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR.

that the purchaser would take all precautions to see that A
the same would be of some use to him. [Para 21J [906-F-
H; 907-A-B]
5.3. Keeping in view the frequency of the
transactions, this Court is of the view that the statutory 8
authorities were justified in passing the impugned orders
cancelling the licences. [Para 22] [907-B-C]

6. Ordinarily in a case of this nature, this Court would
have remitted the matter back to the licensing authority
so as to enable the appellant to satisfy it with regard to C
his bonafide or otherwise in respect of the transactions,
but, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is 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 D
authority to comply ..vith only useless formalities.
However, appellate authority is requested to consider the
question 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 E
on such terms and conditions as are permissible in law,
provided that an application is made in accordance with
the law. [Para 23] [907-C-F]

Case Law Reference:
F
(2007) s sec 329 relied on Para 18
CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3243 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.2.2007 of the High G
Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1809 of 2006.

Siddhartha Dave, Jemtiben and Vibha Datta Makhija for
the Appellants.
H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.

A Madhavi Divan, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the
Respondents.

The Judgmen·t of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. An intricate question involving interpretation of the
provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') falls for
determination in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and
order dated 06th February 2007 passed by a Division Bench
C of the High Court of Bombay.

3. Appellant herein was a renowned sports person
engaged in the sport of shooting since 1988 and has been
participating in the shooting events at national and international
levels. He has consistently been awarded the certificate of
D "Renowned Shot" in the cate..,ories of small bore 10 meter rifle
and pistol, 25 meter all pistol events, 50 meter rifle events, 12
bore trap and skeet events and 300 meter rifle events.

4. Indisputably, the Government of Maharashtra issued a
E notification dated 25th June 1982 in terms of the provisions of
the Act and the rules framed thereunder, classifying the target
shooters into four categories . It furthermore specified the
quantities of arms and ammunition permitted to be possessed
by the target shooters. Having regard to the fact that the
F appellant fell in category 3 of the said notification dated 25th
June 1982, he was granted two licences. viz., licence no.BO/
50/0ctober/90 for 4 revolver/pistol and licence no.BO/SON
October/90 for 5 gun/rifle in the year 1990.

5. It further appears that during the period 1996 to 2005,
G he had bought and sold rifles and pistols for 36 times, the
details whereof are as under :

H
CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY 897
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

A
Sr. Date of Date Weapon Details of weapon
No. purchase sold Type

01 27.08.96 20.07.01 .315 Rifle .315 Rifle No.94 AB
4205
B
02 28.02.97 16.06.97 30.06 30.06 Rifle No.374182
Rifle by Spring Field

03 28.03.98 28.04.99 .22 Rifle .22" Rifle No.804309
by Bruno
c
04 15.07.98 23.09.98 .22 Rifle .22" Rifle No.068207
by Auschwitz

05 05.10.98 16.10.98 .32" Pistol .32" Pistol No.387437
by Unique D

06 12.10.98 20.10.98 .32" .32" Revolver No.ABS
Revolver 4982 by Smith &
Wasson
E
07 02.11.98 28.04.99 .22" Pistol .22" Pistol No.G
25027 by Hammerli

.... _ 08 02.12.98 25.11.99 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No.AC/KB/
667/102177
F
09 09.07.99 15.07.99 .32" Pistol .32" Pistol No.672901
by Astra

10 09.07.99 16.07.99 .32" Pistol .32" Pistol No.27402
by Harrington G

11 01.09.99 22.11.99 .22" Pistol .22" Pistol No.89216

12 25.08.99 07.09.99 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No.105022
by Bruno
H

·•
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A 13 31.08.99 07.09.99 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No.109617
by Bruno

14 2l 09.99 28.09.99 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No.95952
by Bruno
B
15 27.09.99 30.09.99 .22" Rifle .22'' Rifle No.87431
by Bruno

16 27.10.99 19.11.99 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No.35310
by FN Browning
c
17 01.11.99 18.04.00 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No.223058
by Auschwitz

18 05.11.99 12.11.99 .32" .32" Revolver
D Revolver No.607020 by Taurus

19 24.11.99 20.06.00 .22" Pistol .22" Pistol No.307126
by Erma

20 20.12.99 28.04.00 12 Bore 12 Bore DBBL Gun
E
DBBL No.187742 by
Gun Simson
).

21 OS.08.00 13.11.03 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No.96818
by FN Auschwitz
F
22 16.09.00 26.09.01 .22" Pistol .22" Pistol No.27595
by Hammerli

23 18.01.01 20.01.01 .32" .32" Revolver No.H-
Revolver 112351 by Smith &
G
Wasson

24 14.12.01 19.04.02 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No.468146
by Bruno

H
CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v: DEPUTY 899
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

25 22.02.02 16.10.02 ·12 Bore 12 Bore DBBL Gun A
DBBL No.27501 by WW
Gun Greener

26 01.08 02 20.08.02 .45" Pistol .45" Pistol No.C-
14987 by Colt
B
27 17.09.02 08.01.03 .22" Pistol .22" Pistol No. G-
007938 by Walther

28 04.03.03 27.05.05 .38" Pistol .38" Pistol No.12548
by Colt c
29 10.06.03 30.09.03 .45" Pistol .45" Pistol
No.2087341 by Ithaca

30 28.11.03 26.09.01 .22" Pistol .22" Pistol No.27595
by Hammerli D

31 20.02.04 19 08.04 .122" .122" L.R. Barrel
Pistol Pistol No.99286 with
conversion barrels

32 09.06.92 12.01.99 30.06" 30.06" Rifle E
Rifle No.139853 by
Winchester

33 07.06.92 23.09.98 .22" Rifle .22" Rifle No 162302
by Auschwitz
F
34 28.02.94 15.07.98 25/35" 25/35" Rifle
Rifle No.984490 by
Winchester

35 29.05.92 18.09.96 12 Bore 12 Bore DBBL Gun G
DBBL No.8127 by Felix
Gun

36 31.12.99 ML Gun Muzzle Loading Gun
No.14
= H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009j 8 S.C.R.

A It also appears that during the period between 2001 and
2005, on 26 occasions he had imported various arms and
cartridges. During the period between 26.11.1991 and
15.10.2004, however, he had taken part in 18 events of various
State and National Shooting Championships.
B
6. Inter alia, on the premise th'lt he had misused the
licence, taking undue advantage of his aforementioned
certificates by transferring weapons imported by him from
abroad 39 times, a show cause notice was issued to him on
or about 20th January 2005 by the licensing authority, stating :
c
"You are aware that abovesaid both the Weapons
permission are given to you being you are as a renowned
shot. However, upon having verifying the record of this
office, it has been observed that you are taking undue
advantage of your renowned shot and you are importing t.
D
weapons from abroad very easily and these weapons are
being used by you for renowned shot and after that you are
selling these weapons and have sold. It has been observed
that till such time total 39 times you have sold these
E weapons.

You are not holding specimen Form XII weapons
sale/purchase (dealership licence) issued by the
Government of Maharashtra. Only on the basis of that you
are being as a Renowned shot, you are misusing the
F abovesaid licences and doing sale/purchase business and
it has been noticed by this office so it would be better to
cancel the abovesaid licences.

But, before doing the abovesaid act, I, Rajnish
G Sheth, Dy. Commissioner of Police (Head Office) and
Weapon Act, 1959 and I am being a authorized officer, why
I should not cancel your licence of above weapons as per I
the provisions made in Weapon Act, 1959 u/s. 17 so, I am ·
giving you this show cause notice and also I am giving you
H 20 days of time to furnish your satisfied reply in writing to
..
' CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY 901
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
j
j
this show cause notice. A
..,, This authority shall have liberty to take ex-parte
decision if your reply is not received within a prescribed
time as stipulated above, which please note."
...
7. Appellant filed a detailed show cause, inter alia, B
contending:
,.~
'This is wrong I have imported only one Fire Arms Target
Rifle (Steyr Rifle) in 1999 and till today it is on my arms
license. c
I have been given License for 5 Gun/Rifle and 4 Rev/Pistol
for target shooting sports since 1990 (total 9).

-1 And till now I have made sale purchase 39 times (in 15
years) which l have purchased from India only. This all are D
llnd hand and if it was worth for target shooting sport then
I was keeping it or after testing or doing practice if it does
not suit me, I was disposing off to arms licences holder
with your Sale Permission and I was asking purchase
period to purchase my choice weapon." E

~
8. According to him, he had entered into the said
_,. transactions only upon obtaining the requisite permission from
4
the licensing authority. He furthermore contended that as the
accuracy was not to be achieved through some arms, he had
F
to sell them off to buy better arms.

9. By an order dated 04th April 2005, the 1st respondent,
however, cancelled his licences, opining:

"You are aware that abovesaid both the Weapons
,.. permission are given to you being you are as a renowned
G -

shot. However, upon having verifying the record of this
office, it has been observed that you are taking undue
advantage of your renowned shot and you are importing
weapons from abroad very easily and these weapons are H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A being used by you for renowned shot and after that you are '--(
. selling these weapons and have sold. It has been observed
that till such time total 39 times you have sold these '
weapons.

You are not holding specimen Form XII weapons
B
sale/purchase (dealership licence) issued by the
Government of Maharashtra. Only on the basis of that you ,.•
are being as a Renowned shot, you are misusing the
abovesaid weapons and licences and for this reason a
show cause notice bearing No.533/2005 dt.20/01/2005
c was served to you by this office.

For the abovesaid show cause notice, you have
replied on 19/02/2005. However, in your reply have stated
that 'these weapons are now not suitable for the
D competition and hence, these were sold'. Your said point t-
and statement is baseless. You are not holding specimen
Form XII its weapon sales/purchase business licence
(dealership licence) issued by the Government of
Maharashtra only on the point that you are renowned shot
E these licences were offered to you but you have misused
the same and it has been cleared that you are doing sales/
purchase business of the weapons and hence, for J.
cancellation of above said licences, I am passing the order
as under:-
F ORDER

I, Dr. Sanjay Apranti - Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Head Office, being as a Authorised Officer and as per the
provisions made in Weapon Act, 1959 u/s 17(3) and by
G using my powers and authority, hereby canceling the
Weapon Licence No.B0/50/0ctober/90 and B0/50A/
October/90 with immediate effect given to Shri
Chandrakant H. Shah. Both the above said licences and
respective· weapons may be deposited with the weapon
H custody. This is the order."
CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY 903
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
1
> 10. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the State A
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/ B
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 c
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
..t licence was being denied to the appellant. By reason of an
order dated 19th June 2006, the appellate authority, however, D
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 E
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 F
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
G

allowed to have his arms so as to enable him to participate in
the National and State level events.
·f.i
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
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
c 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
to sell his old weapon and purchase new ones. In reply to t.
D
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.
E 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 sub-
F section (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
G 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. ·
H
CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY 905
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
i
1 16. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers A
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. B

i Indisputably, grant of licences under Form Ill is for the
.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 c
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 D
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
E
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 F
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]. G
,.
_,..
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 H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
c 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'.'
D 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
E 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
F
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
G 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
H is another aspect of the matter which also cannot be lost sight
CHANDRAKANT HARGOVINDAS SHAH v. DEPUTY 907
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. [S.8. SINHA, J.]
i" of. It may be one thing to say that he had been purchasing A
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. c
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 D
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 E
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. F
24. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned
observations. No costs.

G.N. Appeal dismissed.