REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3243 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.8729 of 2007]

Chandrakant Hargovindas Shah … Appellant  

Versus

Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

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 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 “Renowned Shot” in the categories 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  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 appellant  

fell  in  category  3  of  the  said  notification  dated  25th June  1982,  he  was  

granted two licences, viz., licence no.BO/50/October/90 for 4 revolver/pistol  

and licence no.BO/50A/October/90 for 5 gun/rifle in the year 1990.   

5. It further appears that during the period 1996 to 2005, he had bought  

and sold rifles and pistols for 36 times, the details whereof are as under :

Sr.  No.

Date of  purchase

Date  sold

Weapon  Type

Details of weapon

01 27.08.96 20.07.01 .315 Rifle .315  Rifle  No.94  AB  4205

02 28.02.97 16.06.97 30.06  Rifle

30.06 Rifle No.374182 by  Spring Field

03 28.03.98 28.04.99 .22 Rifle .22”  Rifle  No.804309 by  Bruno

2

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

06 12.10.98 20.10.98 .32”  Revolver

.32”  Revolver  No.ABS  4982 by Smith & Wasson

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/667/102/77

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

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

13 31.08.99 07.09.99 .22” Rifle .22”  Rifle  No.109617 by  Bruno

14 27.09.99 28.09.99 .22” Rifle .22”  Rifle  No.95952  by  Bruno

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

17 01.11.99 18.04.00 .22” Rifle .22”  Rifle  No.223058 by  Auschwitz

18 05.11.99 12.11.99 .32”  Revolver

.32” Revolver No.607020  by Taurus

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

3

20 20.12.99 28.04.00 12 Bore  DBBL  Gun

12  Bore  DBBL  Gun  No.187742 by Simson

21 05.08.00 13.11.03 .22” Rifle .22”  Rifle  No.96818  by  FN Auschwitz

22 16.09.00 26.09.01 .22” Pistol .22”  Pistol  No.27595  by  Hammerli

23 18.01.01 20.01.01 .32”  Revolver

.32”  Revolver  No.H- 112351  by  Smith  &  Wasson

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

25 22.02.02 16.10.02 12 Bore  DBBL  Gun

12  Bore  DBBL  Gun  No.27501  by  WW  Greener

26 01.08.02 20.08.02 .45” Pistol .45”  Pistol  No.C-14987  by Colt

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

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

31 20.02.04 19.08.04 .122”  Pistol

.122”  L.R.  Barrel  Pistol  No.99286  with  conversion barrels

32 09.06.92 12.01.99 30.06”  Rifle

30.06”  Rifle  No.139853  by Winchester

33 07.06.92 23.09.98 .22” Rifle .22”  Rifle  No.162302 by  Auschwitz

34 28.02.94 15.07.98 25/35”  Rifle

25/35”  Rifle  No.984490  by Winchester

4

35 29.05.92 18.09.96 12 Bore  DBBL  Gun

12  Bore  DBBL  Gun  No.8127 by Felix

36 31.12.99 ML Gun Muzzle  Loading  Gun  No.14

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.   

6. Inter  alia,  on  the  premise  that  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 :  

“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 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 weapons.

You  are  not  holding  specimen  Form  XII  weapons sale/purchase (dealership licence) issued  by the Government of Maharashtra.  Only on the  

5

basis of that you are being as a Renowned shot,  you are misusing the 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 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  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 20 days of time to furnish your satisfied reply  in writing to this show cause notice.

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, 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.

I have been given License for 5 Gun/Rifle and 4  Rev/Pistol  for  target  shooting  sports  since  1990  (total 9).

And till now I have made sale purchase 39 times  (in 15 years) which I have purchased from India  only.  This all are IInd 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.”

6

8. According to him, he had entered into the said transactions only upon  

obtaining  the  requisite  permission  from  the  licensing  authority.   He  

furthermore contended that as the accuracy was not to be achieved through  

some arms, he had 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 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 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 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 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 competition and hence, these were  sold’.  Your said point and statement is baseless.  

7

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 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  cancellation  of  above  said  licences,  I  am  passing the order as under :-

O R D E R

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 using my powers and  authority,  hereby  canceling  the  Weapon  Licence  No.BO/50/October/90  and  BO/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 custody.  This is the order.”

10. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the State 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.BO-50A/October/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  

8

Bench of the High Court, by 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 licence was being  

denied to the appellant.  By reason of an order dated 19th June 2006, the  

appellate authority, however, 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  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 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  

allowed to have his arms so as to enable him to participate in the National  

and State level events.  

9

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.   

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 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 of 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 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.

15. The Arms Act, 1959 was enacted to 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-section (3) of Section 17 of the  

10

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 III of Schedule  

III  of  the  Arms  Rules,  1962  which  is  for  the  purpose  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.

16. The  Central  Government,  in  exercise  of  its  powers  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 III of the said Rules,  

licences  are  granted  in  22  different  forms  and  for  different  purposes  as  

specified therein.   

Indisputably, grant of licences under Form III is for the 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  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  

11

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.   

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  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 suppressio veri’.  

A  mere  omission  or  negligence  would  not  constitute  a  deliberate  act  of  

suppressio veri and suggestio 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 SCC 329 para 71].   

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 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 falsi.   

12

19. Licence(s) under the Act is/are granted for specific purpose(s).  Sub-

section (2) of Section 3 of the Act states that 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  acquire  and  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 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 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 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.  

13

From the aforementioned chart it would appear that on a 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 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 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 purchaser would take all precautions to see that  

the same would 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.   

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 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  

14

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  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 on such terms and  

conditions as are permissible in law, provided that an application is made in  

accordance with the law.   

24. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations.  No  

costs.

……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

..…………………………..…J.  [Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi. May 05, 2009

15