Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th MAY, 2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
MEET MALHOTRA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi S. S. Chauhan and Ms. Pallak Singh, Advocates
Through: Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Advocate for Respondent No. 1/ UOI.
Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3/ NRAI.
Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Mr. Charul Sarin and Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocates for
Respondent No. 4/ Review Petitioner.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. The instant Review Petition has been filed by Respondent No.4 against Order dated 13.04.2023, passed by this Court dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant herein.
2. LPA 532/2022 arises out of Order dated 01.08.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11410/2021 dismissing the Writ Petition which was filed by the Appellant herein challenging the communication dated 31.08.2021 issued by the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) informing the Appellant herein that under Section 3(2) of the Arms Act an individual cannot carry or possess more than two fire arms and directed the Appellant to deposit his third fire arm with the jurisdiction of Police Station or with an authorized arms dealer within 15 days of receipt of the communication. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition vide Order dated 01.08.2022 and the same was sought to be challenged in LPA 532/2022. This Court, vide Order dated 13.04.2023, dismissed the appeal by holding as under:
32. Section 13(3) provides that the licensing authority has to grant a license in respect of a firearm for the purpose of target practice by such a member. Without such a license, a firearm, including a.22 bore rifle cannot be used for target practice. Reading Section 13 and Section 3(3) of the Arms Act, the conclusion one can reach is that a member of a rifle club or rifle association also cannot acquire, possess or carry more than two firearms but they can use the third firearm only for the purpose of target practice for which they have to obtain a license under Section 13 of the Arms Act. A member of the rifle club or rifle association holding two fire arms cannot acquire, possess and carry the third firearm even for target practice as that possession would become illegal subjecting him to punishment under the Arms Act. Had it been the intention of the Central Government that a member of a rifle club or rifle association can acquire, possess and carry a.22 bore rifle or an air rifle firearm at all times, then the legislature would have not restricted the Section by inserting the word “using”. In so far as the member of a rifle club or association is concerned he is permitted to only use a.22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice even if he has two other firearms.
33. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 2(1)(a) of the Arms Act which defines the term “acquisition” and which includes hiring and borrowing a fire arm. Section 2(1)(a) of the Arms Act reads as under: "2(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) acquisition, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes hiring, borrowing, or accepting as a gift;" (emphasis supplied)
34. A reading of Section 2(1)(a), Section 3(3) and Section 13 of the Arms Act leads to only one conclusion, that a member of a rifle club or association who already possess two fire arms can hire or borrow a.22 bore rifle or an air rifle from a person or the rifle club or association or from the authority where the third firearm has been deposited for using it for the purpose of target practice or for a competition and for that limited period of its use the possession of the third fire arm becomes legal.
35. Section 41 of the Arms Act deals with the power of the Government to grant exemption to categories of persons from the provisions of Arms Act. Notifications have been issued by the Government permitting sports persons to hold fire arms more than the specified limit. A member of the rifle club or association does not fall under the exempted category under Section 41 of the Act. A special exemption for possessing a third firearm which includes a.22 bore rifle or an air rifle in addition to two fire arms cannot be read into Section 3(3) of the Arms Act as it will become contrary to the object of the Government in reducing the number of firearms which can be held by a person.
36. The word „using‟ has only been given its grammatical meaning and it means that a member of a rifle club or association, therefore, will have the liberty to borrow a.22 bore rifle or an air rifle from the rifle club or association or the authority where the weapon has been deposited and use the same for the purpose of target practice or for a competition and return the same to the authority from where it was borrowed otherwise the word „use‟ would lose its significance. This is not a case of casus omissus where the Courts have to read into a Section as there was an omission on the part of the legislature. The legislature has deliberately used the words „acquire‟, „possess‟ and „use‟ in the same Section in different connotations and each word must be given its grammatical meaning while interpreting the Section. The provision must be construed in a manner to give effect to each word used by the legislature and in a manner to further the purpose for which the legislation was enacted i.e., to reduce the number of firearms that could be possessed by an individual.
37. Had the legislature intended to exempt a member of a rifle club or association to possess a.22 bore rifle or an air rifle for all times then the Section would have simply read that nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government from possessing a.22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice. The only permission that has been granted to possess a third firearm is only for the purpose of using it for target practice for which a license is required under Section 13(3) of the Act. Other than the limited period of using a firearms for target practice or for participation in a competition, a member of rifle club or rifle association cannot possess the third fire arm. Had such a permission not been given, then the possession of a third fire arm by a member of a rifle association or rifle club even for target practice would become illegal making such a person vulnerable to the rigours under the Act.”
3. Vide the present review petition, the Respondent No.4 seeks to review the said judgment by contending that the interpretation advanced and observations made by this Court are likely to result in extreme prejudice to persons associated with shooting sport and specially the beginners. Written synopsis has been filed by Respondent No.4 and the Counsel for Respondent No.4 has clarified that in shooting sport there are different kinds of fire arms for target shooting and the events are organized by Clubs or State Associations. It is contended that in shooting sport a beginner gets the recommendation for an arms license in sports category only upon achieving a basic milestone and to achieve that milestone a beginner needs to use an appropriate target fire arm to train, practice and compete in competitions. It is contended that as a result of judgment passed by this Court the beginners in shooting sport would now be denied the opportunity to participate in the qualifying competitions at state/zone/national level on account of not having the ability to use the firearms other than a.22 bore rifle which is licensed to the club or association of which they are a member. It is contended that.22 bore rifle is used only in two events out of a total fifteen events in shooting sports whereas for other shooting sport events the shooter or member borrows the firearms from the club/association. It is further stated that shooting sport has three disciplines, i.e. rifle, pistol and shot gun. The rifle discipline has seven shooting events, the pistol discipline has five shooting events and the shot gun discipline has three shooting events. It is stated that accordingly to the interpretation advanced by this Court, the clubs and associations which hold firearms would now not be able to provide firearms, other than.22 bore rifle, to its member for participation in competitions thereby causing extreme prejudice to the beginners in the shooting sport who would not be able to borrow the third fire arm, other than a.22 bore rifle, from clubs and associations of which they are a member.
4. The issue before this Court in LPA arose out of a challenge by the Appellant herein to a letter addressed to him asking him to deposit the fire arm in excess of two fire arms with the jurisdiction police station or with a licensed fire arm dealer within 15 days of receipt of the said communication. The Appellant, who had three fire arms, chose to deposit his.22 bore rifle with the jurisdictional police station. In the Writ Petition and in the Appeal it was contended by the Appellant that he could retain his.22 bore rifle as the same is excluded from the ambit of Section 3(2) of the Arms Act which limits the total number of firearms which could be possessed by a person to two.
5. For reference Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the Arms Act is reproduced herein. Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, as amended in 2019, reads as under: "3(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person, other than a person referred to in subsection (3), shall acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, more than two firearm: Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than three at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983 (25 of 1983), may retain with him any three of such firearms and shall deposit, within ninety days from such commencement, the remaining firearms with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 21, with a licensed dealer or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury referred to in that sub-section. [Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than two at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, may retain with him any two of such firearm and shall deposit, within one year from such commencement, the remaining firearm with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 21, with a licensed dealer or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury referred to in that sub-section after which it shall be delicensed within ninety days from the date of expiry of aforesaid one year: Provided further that while granting arms licence on inheritance or heirloom basis, the limit of two firearms shall not be exceeded.]"
6. Section 3(3) of the Arms Act, reads as under: "3(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government using a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice."
7. The question which arose before this Court and before the learned Single Judge is as to whether the Appellant herein was liable to surrender his third firearm which was a.22 bore rifle and as to whether the.22 bore rifle is excluded from the ambit of Section 3(2) of the Arms Act or not.
8. Learned Single Judge vide Order dated 01.08.2022 has held that looking into the purpose of the amendment, the Appellant herein was liable to surrender his third firearm which was a.22 bore rifle and he could borrow the same from the place where he has deposited it to participate in a competition or for the purpose of target practice.
9. In appeal, this Court has upheld the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge. Respondent No.4 has not challenged the Order of the learned Single Judge and had accepted the said judgment. This Court has not gone beyond the question of examining the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, this review petition by Respondent No.4 cannot be entertained. In any event, Respondent No.4 has not made out any case which points out to an error apparent of the fact of record. The arguments of the learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 are on the merits of the case and, therefore, a review petition is not a remedy.
10. The Apex Court has, time and again, laid down the parameters of entertaining the review petition/application. It is well settled that the scope of review is extremely limited and must only be allowed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or if there is any new or important evidence that is discovered by the Applicant which was not in its knowledge and thus could not be provided when the decree was passed despite conducting due diligence. It must, under no circumstances, be an appeal in disguise. The Apex Court in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78 has observed as under:
13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it “may make such order thereon as it thinks fit”. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing “on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason”. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection. This Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [(1964) 5 SCR 174: AIR 1964 SC 1372] held as follows: (SCR p. 186) “[T]here is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by „error apparent‟. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. … where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.”
11. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Apex Court has held as under:
12. If Respondent No.4 is aggrieved by the interpretation of Section 3(2) & 3(3) of the Arms Act, as given by the learned Single Judge or by this Court, then it is open for Respondent No.4 to challenge the same before the appropriate forum by taking recourse to the remedies available under law.
13. The review petition is dismissed.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MAY 16, 2023