Calcutta High Court directs Nadia DM and ADM (G) to explain contradiction over police report regarding an arms license case

Biswabrata Goswami

Hummingbird News

KRISHNAGAR, 6 AUG: The Calcutta High Court has directed the Nadia district magistrate and the additional district magistrate (General) asking them to file an affidavit within a fortnight to explain the contradiction of their deposition against the report prepared by police authorities over threat perception of a person who filed a petition.

The Honourable Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Moushumi Bhattacharya said in her order, “Having heard the learned counsel, this court is of the view that since there is admittedly a contrary position taken by the police authorities and the additional district magistrate, the answering respondents shall file an affidavit within a fortnight from date to explain such contradictions. The petitioner will have an opportunity to rely on specific provisions of the Arms Act by way of an affidavit-in-reply which is to be filed within a week thereafter.”

The petitioner, Joydip Mitra who is also an advocate, alleged that he had filed an application for getting an arms license. The Kotwali police in Krishnagar submitted a report before the issuing authority mentioning, “The applicant has professional threat in life but no case is recorded in this police station and nothing adverse could be found against him. There is no objection if Joydip Mitra may allow for arms license.”

The additional district magistrate, Nidhi Malik, however, rejected the application on the ground that the applicant has no specific threat to life and property.

Mr Mitra later filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court on the specific point alleging that the additional district magistrate does not have the authority to finally decide an application for carrying arms. The impugned order of the additional district magistrate is contrary to sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959.  

Over a video conference hearing, the court also observed that the contentions of the petitioner are disputed by learned counsel appeared for the State and submitted to the contrary that it is the additional district magistrate who is the appropriate authority and further that the additional district magistrate is not bound by any contradictory reports which may have been given by the police.