Kerala High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Swami Bhadrananda, Holds That Fire Arms License Is 'Valuable Thing' Grant Of Which Can Attract Section 13(1)(d) Of PC Act

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings registered against them under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Rule 51(A) of the Arms Rules, 1962 read with Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Among other things, the Petitioners contended that the grant of a license for a gun would not amount to a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, and therefore, the same would not attract a criminal offence as defined in Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

The Single Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar rejected this argument and held, “Getting a firearm license certainly is a valuable thing, although not a pecuniary advantage. Value of a thing cannot be counted in terms of its monetary value alone. Something is valuable or not depends upon its utility to the prospective user concerned. Insofar as a person apprehending threat to his life possessing a firearm is quite valuable since it provides protection to his life. Section 3 of the Arms Act prohibits possession of a firearm without a license. Therefore, a firearm license which enabled the 2nd accused to possess a firearm is certainly a valuable thing for him. Hence issuance of such a firearm license to the 2nd accused comes within the purview of ‘valuable thing’ mentioned in Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act”,

With respect to the personal recommendation of the Additional District Magistrate to grant arms license to Bhadrananda, the Court held, “A public servant is expected to take decisions by virtue of his office dispassionately and unaffected by any personal predictions. In that prospective, the recommendation made by the 1st accused is tainted.”

However, the Court found that an Additional District Magistrate does not have any power in the matter of granting a firearm license where the District Magistrate is the licensing authority and chance quashed the offence. 

Advocates S. Jayant and  V.N. Sunil Kumar represented the Petitioners while Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha S represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first accused was holding the charge of Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam during the period between June 11, 2007, to March 31, 2008. The second accused, Swami Bhadrananda, had submitted an Arms application to the District Collector for obtaining an Arms License for a pistol suppressing the fact that he had applied for an Arms License before the District Collector and the same had been pending at the District Collectorate under the Additional District Magistrate. The first accused Magistrate submitted the second Arms application filed by Bhadrananda in 2008 to the District Collector recommending the Arms License without obtaining the report of the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, Forest and Revenue Departments and two passport-size photographs along with the application.

It was alleged that the Additional District Magistrate issued the license to Bhadrananda through his proceedings, abusing his official position as a public servant without any public interest, to obtain pecuniary advantage. It was alleged that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and offence under Rule 51(A) of the Arms Rules, 1962 read with Section 30 of the Arms Act,1959.

Reasoning

Referring to Rule 2(5) of the Arms Rules, the Bench explained that the District Magistrate is the authority empowered to grant license in regard to the arms mentioned in Item No.3 of Schedule II, which includes a firearm. “The licensing authority, therefore, is the District Magistrate (District Collector)”, it said. On a perusal of the averments, the Bench noted that the 1st accused recommended issuance of a license to the 2nd accused. The 1st accused jotted on the file that he knew the 2nd accused, who was of good conduct and even without obtaining other reports, a license could be granted.

    The Court mentioned, “An Additional District Magistrate does not have any empowerment in the matter of grant of a firearm license where the District Magistrate is the licensing authority. Section 13(2) of the Arms Act insists on getting a report from the Station House Officer concerned before issuance of a license.”

The Court further held, “Nonetheless, the report in question of the 1st accused, which according to the prosecution resulted in granting license in favour of the 2nd accused, was only recommendatory in nature.” The District Magistrate being the statutory authority to decide whether or not to grant a license, was not bound to act upon the recommendation of the 1st accused. Thus, it was incorrect to say that misuse of the official position by the 1st accused resulted in the 2nd accused obtaining the license.

As per the Bench, the first accused by making the recommendation in question, committed a grave dereliction of duty. Such a recommendation was in gross violation of his duty as a public servant. However, that act amounted only to a violation of the rules and official procedure but did not amount to an act actuated by dishonest intention since his decision on its own could not result in the issuance of the license. Thus, the Bench quashed the proceedings under the PC Act and the Arms Act.

Cause Title: A.K.Thankappan & Anr. v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:12063)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates V.N. Sunil Kumar, Akhil P.C., S. Jayant, Prasanth N.L. and Jerees J.

Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Rekha S, Spl PP(Vig) A Rajesh

Click here to read/download Order