Heard Shri Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi dated 30.7.2003 and also the order dated 10.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad.
The petitioner is licencee of DBBL gun no. 12864. The show cause notice dated 22.6.2002 has been issued upon the petitioner on the report of Superintendent of Police Kaushambi dated 1.6.2002, wherein it was stated that petitioner is a man of criminal tendency and is in habit of demonstrating his firearms to threaten the poor people. There are four cases registered against him, which are case crime no. 204 of 1984 under sections 307/302 I.P.C., case crime no. 265 of 1996, under sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506, 325, 427 I.P.C., case crime no. 30 of 2000 under sections 325, 323, 504, I.P.C. and case crime no. 148 of 2002 under sections 302, 506 I.P.C. In view of the fact that criminal cases are registered against him, petitioner's firearm licence was suspended and he was asked to deposit the same. He was further required to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The District Magistrate, Kaushambi after consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, has observed that out of four criminal cases registered against him, in three cases charge sheet has been submitted in the court after investigation. The order of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi dated 30.7.2003 further reflects that it was brought to its notice that criminal case no. 204 of 1984 under sections 307, 302 I.P.C, has been decided and petitioner has been acquitted in the same. In another case crime no. 265 of 1996, the name of the petitioner is not there and only two cases were pending consideration. The petitioner in his reply has submitted that he never misused his arms licence. However, conclusion has been drawn by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, that total four criminal cases registered against the petitioner, out of these cases, two cases are serious in nature. The petitioner is a man of criminal tendency and he used to indulge in criminal activities. He is not fit to retain firearms licence granted to him and there is an apprehension of misuse of the firearm licence by the petitioner. In view of that the firearms licence of the petitioner is to be cancelled for the security of public peace and public safety.
Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi. The appellate authority concurred with District Magistrate, Kaushambi, and dismissed the appeal.
In the supplementary affidavit filed in compliance of the order of this court dated 25.11.2005,petitioner has filed the copy of the judgements passed in four criminal cases registered against him. Another supplementary affidavit dated 16th January, 2007 was filed in the court on 17.1.2007. Along with supplementary affidavit dated 16th January, 2007, the petitioner has filed photocopy of the order dated 11.2.87 passed in case crime no. 204 of 1984. Photocopy of the order passed by the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabd has been annexed as annexure- 'S.A.- 1', which shows that petitioner has been acquitted as the prosecution has failed to establish the case against him and has failed to prove him guilty beyond doubt.
In case crime no. 265 of 1996 annexed as annexure 'S.A.- 2,' charge sheet has been submitted in the court and the case is pending. In the third case crime no. 30 of 2000, registered against the petitioner, petitioner in paragraph-5 of the supplementary affidavit states that learned District and Sessions Judge Kaushambi, has given a finding that gun was not fired by the petitioner.
Perusal of the order dated 9.7.2002, copy of which has been annexed as annexure S.A.-3 to the supplementary affidavit shows that same has been passed in criminal revision no. 295 of 2002 and order has been passed to release the gun in favour of the petitioner on security of Rs. 30,000/- with a further direction to produce the same whenever required. Thus contention of the petitioner in paragraph-5 of the supplementary affidavit that in case crime no. 30 of 2000, registered under sections 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. finding has been given by learned District & Sessions Judge, Kaushambi, that gun was not fired by the petitioner is misleading in nature.
In the fourth case no. 197 of 2002 registered under sections 302, 506 I.P.C. the order dated 1.5.2004 has been as annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit, wherein petitioner was acquitted on the ground that prosecution has failed to establish his case beyond doubt.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 dated 13.4.2005, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is a man of criminal tendency and criminal cases registered against him are pending.
In paragraph-6 of the supplementary affidavit dated 16.1.2007 petitioner has submitted that in fact the case crime no. 197 of 2002 has been registered under section 302 I.P.C. and section 25 of the Arms Act and no criminal case no. 148 of 2002 under section 302, 506 I.P.C. has been registered against him. The acquittal order annexed as annexure 'S.A.- 4' to the Supplementary affidavit is in case crime no. 197 of 2002 and not in case crime no. 148 of 2002 under sections 302, 506 I.P.C. In paragraph- 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.4 i.e. Station Officer , Police Station, Kokhraj District Kaushambi, it has been clearly stated that contents of paragraph-6 of the supplementary affidavit are wrong in as much as case crime no. 148 of 2002 under section 302/504 I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner and it is at the stage of evidence. The date of evidence of the said case was mentioned as 16.4.2007. It has been admitted that petitioner has been acquitted in case crime no. 197 of 2002, however, the contention that case crime no. 148 of 2002 has not been registered against him is totally false.
On 25.1.2008 petitioner was granted three weeks' time to file supplementary rejoinder affidavit specially in reference to the averments made in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no 4 dated 17/20.4.2007. No supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner till date. In the rejoinder affidavit filed to the counter affidavit on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3, petitioner has denied allegation with regard to misuse of firearms licence by him and has stated that criminal cases were registered against him due to party bandi of the village.
There is one supplementary counter affidavit filed in reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 9.1.2006. It has been stated in the same that annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit is the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, dated 28.2.2005 wherein proceedings initiated under section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act have been cancelled. It has further been stated that in paragraph-7 of the supplementary counter affidavit that petitioner is in habit of indulging in criminal activities and as such he is not entitled to retain the firearm licence.
A perusal of the order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, in case no. 164/60/58 under section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, shows that finding has been recorded by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, that though as per police report and prosecution case conduct of the petitioner is not beyond doubt but as there is no solid basis for initiating proceedings against the petitioner under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act and as such proceedings were dropped.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made oral submissions that petitioner has been acquitted in three cases registered against him and in 4th case crime no. 30 of 2000, final report has been filed in favour of the petitioner. However perusal of the order of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, and documents on record show that after investigation charge sheet no.87/2000, dated 3.5.2000 has been filed in the court and the said case is pending consideration.
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal cases registered against him and, therefore, ground for cancellation of the licence is no more in existence. He further submits that firearm licence of the petitioner has been cancelled merely on the ground of his involvement in criminal cases registered against him. The District Magistrate, Kaushambi, only on the basis of criminal cases registered against him has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a man of criminal tendency and is likely to endanger to the public peace and tranquillity.
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs. The District Magistrate Basti and others, reported in 1978 AWC 122, and Masi Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad 1972 ALJ 573, wherein it has been held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be said to be a ground for revocation of arms licence.
Petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgements of this court in Fakir Chand Vs. The Commissioner, Meerut Mandal Meerut & another,2002 (1) JIC 445 (All), Bal Krishan Pandey Vs. Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Division Banda & others, 2002 (1) JIC 796 (All), Mohd. Haroon Vs. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, 2003 (1) JIC 979 (All.), Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. And others, 2010 (70) ACC 39, in order to substantiate his arguments.
There is no dispute with regard to legal preposition that mere involvement in criminal cases cannot be a ground for rejection of arms licence of the petitioner. However, conduct of the petitioner has also been considered by the District Magistrate in its order dated 30.7.2003 wherein it was clearly stated that petitioner is a habit of indulging in criminal activities .There is an apprehension of misuse of firearm licence by the petitioner. The licence was cancelled under section 17(3) (b) of the Arms Act . Sub-sections (1) to 5 of section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, provides power to the licencing authority to revoke or suspend the arms licence of the petitioner. Sub-sections (1) to 5 of Section 17 of the Act are reproduced as under :
"17.Variation, suspension and revocation of licences-(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.
(2)The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence , also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.
(3)The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence-
(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act ; or
(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or
(c)if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it;or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e)if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.
(4)The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.
(5)Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section(3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement"
It is well settled that in the cases of grant or cancellation of licence assessment of the administrative authorities are to be given weightage as they are the authority to maintain public peace and harmony in the public. The assessment of the administrative authorities with regard to grant or cancellation of licence thereof should not be interfered with ordinarily by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction unless the same is so as to prick the conscience of the court.
In the present case from two supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner it is clear that petitioner has not come out with the clean hand in the court. The averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the supplementary affidavit dated 16.1.2007 are misleading. Petitioner has tried to mislead the court by saying that order dated 9.7.2002 has been passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaushmbai in case crime no. 30 of 2000 whereas perusal of the order shows that it has been passed in criminal revision no. 295 of 2002 and there was an order for release of the gun by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kaushmbai subject to deposit of security and he shall produce the same whenever required. With regard to averments made in paragraph- 6 of the supplementary affidavit ,wherein it has been stated that no case crime No. 148 of 2002. under sections 302, 506 I.P.C. as mentioned in the order of the District Magistrate, Kaushambhi has been registered against him rather case crime no. 197 of 2002 under sections 302 I.PC., and section 25 Arms Act has been registered against him in which he has been acquitted, it may be noted that a supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Station Officer, Police Station, Kokhraj, Kaushambi, i.e. respondent no.4 that said criminal case is registered and a charge sheet has been submitted and the same is pending before the court.
In the order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, in case crime no.164/60/58 under section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, there is reference of seven criminal cases which have been registered against the petitioner including the case crime no. 148 of 2002 under sections 302, 506 I.P.C. and 197 of 2002 under sections 307 I.P.C. The copy of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, has been annexed along with supplementary affidavit filed on 9.1.2006 of which counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent.
This court has directed the petitioner to file his reply specifically to the averments made in supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.4 in reply to the supplementary affidavit dated 16.1.2007, however, till date no supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.
In view of the same, it is clear that petitioner has not placed correct fact before this court and made wrong assertions in the affidavit filed by him in the court. From the conduct of the petitioner, it is clear that assessment of the administrative authorities i.e. District Magistrate, Kaushambi, regarding cancellation of the firearm licence of the petitioner is based on material on record. It may be noted that findings of Administrative Authorities are not solely on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in criminal cases rather overall conduct of the petitioner was considered and there was material before the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, to come to the conclusion that petitioner is having criminal history though he was acquitted in some of the cases as they could not be proved beyond doubt.
In view of the above discussion, this court does not find it a fit case for interference in assessment and subjective satisfaction of the administrative authorities in exercise of of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of the administrative authorities does not call for any interference by this court.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Dated: 24.5.2012 Aks.