Sri A Ravi vs State Of Karnataka - Writ Petition

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Issues | Petitioner's Arguments |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 4, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri A Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15923
WP No. 8886 of 2026

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                        BEFORE
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8886 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
               BETWEEN:

               SRI. A. RAVI,
               S/O ANDANAPPA
               AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
               TIMBER MERCHANT,
               RESIDING AT NO.101,
               TOTADAGUDDADAHALLI,
               DASANAPURA HOBLI,
               NAGASANDRA,
               BENGALURU - 73.

               ALSO CARRYING ON BUSINESS
               UNDER THE NAME AND
               STYLE R K RESORT,

Digitally signed
ANCHEPALYA,
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH
NAGASANDRA POST,
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 073.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G BALAJI NAIDU., ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                     DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
                     VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                           -2-
                                     NC: 2026:KHC:15923
                                    WP No. 8886 of 2026

HC-KAR

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
   DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
   BENGALURU URBAN,
   KHANDAYA BHAVANA,
   K.G. ROAD,
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
   BENGALURU NORTH,
   PEENYA SECOND FLOOR,
   KIADB BUILDING, P BLOCK,
   4TH STAGE, PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
   BENGALURU - 560 058.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
   PEENYA SUB - DIVISION,
   PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
   BENGALURU - 560 058.

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
   MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
   BENGALURU.
   ...RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

   THIS WP IS FILED UNDER [ARTICLES 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) AND [227](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331149/) OF
   

   THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. DIRECTING THE
   RESPONDENTS TO RETURN THE PETITIONERS LICENSED
   PISTOL BEARING WEAPON NUMBER 97280 (CZ MAKE) ALONG
   WITH 4 AMMUNITION CONFISCATED BY MADANYAKANAHALLI
   POLICE STATION ON 12.03.2026 AS PER ANNEXURE - E AND
   ETC.,
   -3-
   NC: 2026:KHC:15923
   WP No. 8886 of 2026

HC-KAR

   THIS      PETITION,    COMING       ON    FOR        PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                         ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts to be a law abiding citizen

and claims to be carrying on business under the name

and style R.K. Resort at Thottadaguddadahalli,

Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru District. The petitioner

possesses a valid licence to hold arms issued in Form

No.3 under the Arms Act, 1959 bearing licence

number MAG(S) ARMCR 61/11-12.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of

the Respondent No.5 - Inspector of Police in

confiscating the petitioner's licenced arms on the

premised that the complaint is lodged by petitioner's

son.

NC: 2026:KHC:15923

HC-KAR

1. The petitioner calls in question the action of

respondent No.5 in confiscating the licensed arms,

inter alia contending that the said authority lacks

jurisdiction to order confiscation. Placing strong

reliance on Section 32 of the Arms Act, 1959, learned

counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

statutory scheme clearly postulates that confiscation

of arms can be ordered only by a competent criminal

court and that too upon culmination of trial resulting

in conviction. It is further contended that the role of

the police or executive authorities is only ancillary and

limited to acting in aid of, or in compliance with,

directions issued by a competent court. In the absence

of any such adjudication or direction by the

jurisdictional criminal court, the unilateral action of

respondent No.5 in confiscating the licensed arms is

without authority of law and is liable to be set aside.

NC: 2026:KHC:15923

HC-KAR

1. This Court has carefully considered the

submissions and has adverted to the mandate of Section 32 of the Arms Act, 1959. A plain reading of

the said provision makes it manifest that the power of

confiscation is not an independent executive power,

but one that is intrinsically linked to judicial

determination by a competent criminal court upon

recording of conviction. The provision does not vest

any suo motu power in the police authorities to

confiscate licensed arms dehors such adjudication. In

the present case, admittedly, no such conviction has

been recorded nor is there any order passed by a

competent criminal court directing confiscation. The

impugned action of respondent No.5, therefore, runs

contrary to the statutory framework and amounts to

an excess of jurisdiction.

NC: 2026:KHC:15923

HC-KAR

1. This Court also finds considerable force in

the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the genesis of the action lies in a

complaint lodged by the petitioner's son, which, on the

face of it, discloses a familial discord between father

and son. While such disputes may warrant appropriate

preventive measures in accordance with law, the

drastic step of confiscation of licensed arms, in the

absence of statutory sanction, cannot be sustained.

The impugned action, therefore, appears to be not

only without jurisdiction but also disproportionate and

arbitrary.

1. In the above backdrop, this Court is of the

considered view that the action of respondent No.5 in

confiscating the licensed arms warrants interference.

However, in order to balance the concerns of safety

and to ensure that the licensed arms are not misused,

                                        NC: 2026:KHC:15923

HC-KAR

this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner

to furnish an affidavit undertaking that he shall not,

under any circumstances, threaten or endanger his

son or any of his family members by use of the

licensed arms.

1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this

Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The action of respondent No.5 in
confiscating the petitioner's licensed arms
and ammunition is set aside.

(iii) Respondent No.5 is directed to restore
custody of the licensed arms along with
ammunition to the petitioner, subject to the
petitioner furnishing an affidavit of
undertaking stating that he shall not use the
licensed arms to threaten, intimidate, or

NC: 2026:KHC:15923

HC-KAR

cause harm to his son or any of his family
members.

(iv) Upon such affidavit being filed,
respondent No.5 shall forthwith, and in any
event within a period of four (4) weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, hand over custody of the confiscated
arms and ammunition to the petitioner.

(v) It is made clear that any breach of the
undertaking so furnished by the petitioner
would entail appropriate action in
accordance with law, including
reconsideration of the licence.
Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE

SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32