Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 462/2007

Arvind Kumar Sharma       ….….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors.                     ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

has been filed by an Advocate practicing before this Court raising

public  interest  issue  regarding  illegal  selling  of  “Prohibited/NSP

bore-weapons”  obtained  by  the  Army  Personnel  through  Central

Ordinance Depot (COD), Jabalpur on the basis of the order passed

by the Allotment Committee. It  is alleged that the weapons have

been sold to the general public including to persons with criminal

records, in breach of relevant Rules and provisions of the Arms Act,

1959.  The  petitioner  has  relied  on  the  enquiry  report  of  the

Page 2

2

Collector, Sriganganagar, dated 3rd July, 2007 which, according to

him, has enlisted the names of Army Personnel, who had indulged

in illegal sale of such prohibited weapons to the general public and

people  having  a  criminal  background,  including  anti-social

elements and terrorists. The petitioner has also referred to another

instance of registration of various cases by the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with

120-B IPC in the District of Jammu regarding issuance of around

30,000  armed  licenses  by  the  concerned  officials/District

Magistrate between 1994 to 1998. That has been enquired into. The

enquiry revealed active connivance between various arms dealers of

Jammu, Delhi,  Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan in violation of

established  procedure  prescribed  by  the  Arms  Act;  and  that  in

majority of cases the original addressee/applicant was not traceable

at  the  given  address.  According  to  the  petitioner,  the  licensing

authority  even  in  the  State  of  Rajasthan  and  in  particular

Sriganganagar  District,  a  border  State  of  India  have  reportedly

granted Arms Licenses without due verification. The petitioner has

relied on newspaper reports in the State of Rajasthan to buttress

Page 3

3

this plea. He also relies on the enquiry report dated 03.07.2007 of

the Collector, Sriganganagar. According to the petitioner, no follow

up action has been taken by the concerned Authority of the State of

Rajasthan in spite of the said report. The petitioner has, therefore,

prayed that an enquiry be directed through an independent agency

like CBI to unravel the conspiracy and to take action against the

concerned officers including Army Personnel involved in the stated

arms license scandal in the District of Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

Direction  is  also  sought  against  the  Home  Ministry,  State  of

Rajasthan  to  forthwith  cancel  all  licenses  issued  without  due

verification/identification  in  violation  of  Arms  Act,  1959.  The

petitioner has also sought direction against the Union of India to

strictly follow the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959; and to frame

strict  guidelines mandating all  the officials/licensing authority of

the  States  throughout  the  Country  to  ensure  due  verification

through the Home Ministry on the basis of report called from the

concerned Police Station about the antecedents of the applicant and

not by the Collector, before issuing license.  It is further prayed that

the  Ministry  of  Defence,  Government  of  India,  must  initiate

Page 4

4

appropriate action against the concerned Army Personnel who have

been  named  by  the  Collector  in  the  preliminary  enquiry  report

dated 3rd July, 2007.  

2. After  notice  was  issued  by  the  Court,  the  respondents  in

particular State  Authorities were called upon to produce enquiry

report of the Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar in a sealed

cover. That report has been submitted. As the matter proceeded,

the Court vide order dated 30th July, 2010 issued further directions

to  the  State  of  Rajasthan  to  place  on  record  a  status  report

regarding  the  proceedings  initiated  after  registration  of  FIR.  The

Court perused the affidavit filed by the Major O.P. Sharma who was

serving as Adjutant 1, Air Formation Signal Regiment, New Delhi,

wherein  it  is  mentioned that  out  of  41 officers,  one  JCO and 4

retired  officers,  who  had  sold  their  Non  Service  Pattern  (NSP)

weapon in violation of the provisions of the Arms Act and Special

Army Order  1/S/1996,  four  officers  retrieved their  weapons and

administrative action against them was in progress. Six officers had

retired. The civil  administration was asked to proceed against all

the  10  retired  officers.  The  remaining  officers  were  facing

Page 5

5

disciplinary action under the Army Act for which necessary action

was initiated. The Court, however, recorded its dissatisfaction and

called  upon  the  Ministry  of  Defence  to  file  a  proper  and

comprehensive  affidavit  giving  details  about  the  action  taken

against  the  officers  concerned.  In  furtherance  of  this  direction,

affidavit has been filed by the authorized officer, on 18th February,

2011. The Court after perusing the relevant record regarding the

details  and  status  of  the  investigation  in  14  First  Information

Reports/Cases  and  the  affidavit  of  Additional  Superintendent  of

Police, Sriganganagar observed that in view of the magnitude and

seriousness  of  the  allegations  leveled  against  some  of  the  IAS

Officers in the State, the Chief Secretary of the State must file a

comprehensive  status  report  along  with  a  proper  affidavit.

Accordingly, the Chief Secretary filed affidavit, sworn on 8th March,

2011,  giving  relevant  information  about  the  progress  of  the

respective cases. Further status reports have been filed from time,

to time during the further hearing.

3. On 30th April,  2013, the petitioner appearing in person had

argued  that  in  spite  of  the  gravity  of  the  misconduct/criminal

Page 6

6

offences committed by numerous Army Personnel ranging from the

lower ranks to the higher ranks, the Army authorities have failed to

initiate appropriate action against them. The Court after recording

this contention and perusing the relevant facts and status reports

found that before any effective order could be passed it would be

appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to file an affidavit setting out

the latest position including the details of any orders of disciplinary

action/punishment  which  may  have  been  passed  against  the

officers/Army  personnel.  The  Court  further  directed  that  the

affidavit  should  specifically  mention  about  the  status  of  action

taken against the officers named in the enquiry report dated 15th

July,  2007.  The  State  of  Rajasthan was  also  directed  to  submit

latest  status  report  as  to  the  progress  made  in  various

criminal/disciplinary  proceedings  including  against  any  I.A.S.

Officers.  Accordingly,  additional  affidavit  of  Director,  Ministry  of

Defence  has  been  filed  (at  pages  500-512)  giving  relevant

information about the action taken against the Army Personnel and

status  of  those  proceedings  including  the  status  of  pending

proceedings. Along with the affidavit, specific information regarding

Page 7

7

the action taken against the concerned Army Personnel including

by way of disciplinary action has been placed on record in the form

of a chart annexed as Appendix-A.  Appendix-A mentions about the

action taken against 25 officers involved in importing ammunition

in excess of authorization. After enquiry, the Competent Authority

has  awarded  Severe  Displeasure  (Non-Recordable)  by  General

Officer-in-Command,  South Western Command.  In another  chart

annexed to the affidavit as Appendix-B, summary of administrative

action initiated against twelve officers who retrieved and deposited

weapons is  mentioned.  Some of  them have been awarded severe

displeasure (recordable) and in some cases non-recordable. Chart

annexed  as  Appendix-C  to  the  affidavit  gives  summary  of

disciplinary  action  initiated  against  another  twenty  five  Army

Personnel who were involved in sale of a single weapon. Punishment

of severe reprimand/reprimand with fine has been awarded in some

cases  and  in  other  cases  forfeiture  of  one  year  service  for  the

purpose  of  promotion  has  been  awarded.  In  chart  Appendix-D,

details of 10 cases of retired officers is mentioned. Their proposals

are  referred  to  Civil  Administration  and  were  being  processed.

Page 8

8

Similarly, the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan filed further

affidavit  dated  19th July,  2013  (at  pages  513-538),  giving  latest

status of criminal proceedings/disciplinary proceedings.  

4. In the context of punishment awarded to the Army Personnel

the  petitioner  contends that  the department has  taken a lenient

approach. According to him, the punishment ought to have been

more severe. The argument though attractive at the first blush on a

deeper  scrutiny  does  not  commend  to  us.  For,  the  appropriate

authority has taken into account all the attending circumstances

before awarding punishment to the concerned Army Personnel. Had

it  been  a  case  of  all  the  Army  Officials  being  awarded  same

punishment  or  absolved  and  exonerated,  that  may  have

necessitated  further  probe  by  us.  Merely  because  some  other

punishment could also be awarded, by itself, can be no ground to

continue with the probe in this public interest petition. We find that

suitable action has been taken against the erring Army Personnel.

Further, as there is no material before us to even remotely suggest

that  the  punishment  awarded  against  any  particular  Army

Page 9

9

Personnel is to favour him in any manner, nothing more is required

to be done.  

5. Indeed,  the  issue  raised  by  the  petitioner  has  resulted  in

unraveling  of  the  irregularities  and  illegalities  committed  by  the

concerned officers.  That, however, has now been redressed by the

appropriate authority by taking suitable action against the erring

Army  Personnel.  The  affidavits  filed  from  time  to  time  by  the

appropriate authority also revealed that criminal action is instituted

against the erring persons, which, in most cases, has been taken to

its logical end and some are pending trial.  As regards the pending

cases, we have no doubt that the appropriate Authority/Court will

take the same to its logical end expeditiously in accordance with

law.  

6. Reverting to the response filed by the State of Rajasthan, Chief

Secretary in his affidavit sworn on 8th March, 2011, it is stated that

the State Government has investigated the matter in right earnest

and  also  accorded  sanction  against  the  concerned  Government

officials.  Four  members  of  the  Rajasthan Administrative  Services

(RAS)  were suspended and sanction to  prosecute  them was also

Page 10

10

granted. Details of criminal cases have been noted in this affidavit.

This affidavit has also placed on record that there are other 304

suspected licences and those cases were under scrutiny. Assurance

was given in this affidavit that the scrutiny in that behalf will be

done within six months time. In the subsequent affidavit filed by

the  State  of  Rajasthan sworn on 2nd August,  2011,  the  progress

about the criminal cases has been revealed. This affidavit mentions

that only one criminal case was pending for investigation and in one

case  prosecution sanction was  awaited.   Further  affidavit  of  the

Chief  Secretary of  Government of  Rajasthan sworn on 19th July,

2013, was filed to place on record the latest status report about the

charge sheet filed in various criminal cases. It also mentions about

the status of disciplinary proceedings initiated against two officers

of the State.  From the affidavits filed from time to time, it is noticed

that  suitable  action  has  been  taken  against  all  persons  found

involved  during  the  enquiry,  by  way  of  criminal  proceedings  or

disciplinary proceedings, as the case may be. With regard to action

taken by the State Government no specific grievance has been made

by the petitioner about its inadequacy or inertia in the progress of

Page 11

11

disciplinary  proceedings.  A general  submission is  made that  the

response filed by the State Government is a total eye wash. At the

same  time,  no  material  is  brought  to  our  notice  which  would

suggest that the criminal cases instituted by the State against its

erring officers was insufficient measure or that the State has failed

to take action against any particular person or Government officer

who was found to be involved as per the enquiry report. As regards

the criminal cases, the progress of those cases has been placed on

record. As observed in the case of action taken by the Ministry of

Defence, we may reiterate that the appropriate Authority/Court will

take  the  proceedings  pending  before  it  to  its  logical  end

expeditiously in accordance with law.  

7. As regards the prayer to issue direction to the Home Ministry

to  frame guidelines in  the  matter  of  issuing Arms licenses,  it  is

stated  that  the  licensing  authority  in  respect  of  prohibited  bore

weapons is  with the  Central  Government.  The Ministry  of  Home

Affairs processes the applications strictly as per the provisions of

the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder. Whereas, the

District Magistrate is the licensing authority for non prohibited bore

Page 12

12

weapons. As per the extant regulations, the licensing authority is

obliged to seek report of the officer in-charge of the nearest police

station to verify the antecedents of the applicant; and only those

who  fulfill  the  prescribed  norms  are  granted  license.  While

processing the applications, the District Magistrate is also obliged

to consider such report and grant arms license for non prohibited

weapons only to persons who may be residing within the local limits

of  the  District  Magistrate  including  after  due  verification  of

antecedents of the applicant.  

8. Considering  the  reports  and  the  affidavits  filed  by  the

respective authorities from time to time in the present proceedings

and  being  satisfied  that  suitable  action  has  been  taken  by  the

appropriate authority of the State Government as well as Central

Government against officers whose involvement has been noted in

the independent enquiries made by the concerned department; and

that as there is already a firm procedure prescribed for issuance of

prohibited and non prohibited weapons in the shape of provisions of

the Arms Act and the Rules framed thereunder and including the

Page 13

13

periodical  instructions  issued  by  the  Department  in  that  behalf,

nothing more needs to be done.  

9. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition

with  observation  that  the  appropriate  Authorities/Court  must

dispose of the pending matter(s) if any, expeditiously in accordance

with law.      

10. We place on record our appreciation for the initiative taken by

the petitioner in filing this petition and bringing to the fore such a

sensitive issue, which otherwise may have gone unnoticed.  

11. While  parting,  we  reiterate  the  sentiment  expressed  in  the

orders passed by this Court from time to time to ensure that the

mechanism for sale of NSP weapons must be under strict scrutiny

and  supervision  of  the  Competent  Authority  in  accord  with  the

provisions  of  the  Arms  Act  and  the  Rules  framed  thereunder

including the Defence Services Regulations without any exception.  

12. With the above observations, we dispose of this petition with

costs.  We  direct  the  Union  of  India  to  pay  cost  quantified  at

Rs.10, 000/-, to the petitioner. As the petition is disposed in terms

Page 14

14

of this order, the original record kept in sealed cover be returned

back to the counsel for the concerned respondent.                

.………………………….CJI (T.S.Thakur)

..……………………………J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)

……………………………..J. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi, August 16, 2016