Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28281 of 2018
Petitioner :- Jiyan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar,Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The present petition is directed against the orders of licensing authority and appellate authority cancelling the fire arms licence of the petitioner on the basis of report of the Superintendence of Police dated 12.4.2009 wherein it was informed that criminal case in Case Crime No. 261/2007, under Section 302/120-B, I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner.
With reference to the judgment and order dated 17.8.2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 439/2014, it is demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, inasmuch as, it was a case of false implication of the petitioner. It appears that the fact of acquittal of the petitioner has not been brought to the notice of the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad who has affirmed the order of cancellation of fire arms licence by dismissing the appeal.
From the perusal of the appellate order dated 5.5.2018, it is clear that the fact of acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case has not been considered at all.
Thus, considering the judgment of acquittal, this Court is of the considered view that with the acquittal of the petitioner, the grounds of cancellation of fire arms licence, itself obliterate. Reference may be made to the judgement of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pandit Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 435 wherein it has been held as under:-
• The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under section 17 of the Arms Act has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and others 1979 (16) ACC 6(sum), wherein the Division Bench has relied upon the earlier decisions of this Court in Mast Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad 1972 ALJ 573. In the aforesaid cases, it has been held that mere involvement in a criminal case can not in any way effect the public security and public interest. In view of the this proposition of law, the order cancelling or revoking the arms licence of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of involvement and pendency of a criminal case is not tenable.
In Full Bench Decision of this Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984 (10) ALR 223 and Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1985 (22) ACC 353 and in case of Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1994 JIC 72 (All); 1995 (Supp) ACC 235, it has been held that mere pendency of a criminal case(s) is no ground for cancellation of arms licence. The effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions was also considered in Sadri Ram Vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others, 1998 (3) AWC 2102: 1998 (37) ACC 830.
This Court in the case of Harprasad Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2005 (5) AWC 4939 held as hereunder:-
• "Involvement and pendency of a case crime is no ground for cancellation of fire-arm licence. It is settled law that after acquittal the very basis for cancellation of the arm licence stands vitiated. In this regard reference of the decision rendered in Lalji Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and another, 199 (4) AWC 2952, has been made."
In view of above, without entering into the merits of the orders impugned, the present petition is being disposed of with the direction to the District Magistrate, Kaushambi to consider the claim of the petitioner for revocation of the cancellation order considering the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, which was the basis of cancellation of fire arms licence.
For the purpose, the petitioner may file a fresh application within two weeks along with certified copy of this order. In case, such an application is filed, the District Magistrate, Kaushambi would be under obligation to take a decision in accordance with law, after seeking a fresh report with regard to credentials of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of the application.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Pratima