(Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.5.2009 passed by the Licencing Authority i.e. District Magistrate, Sultanpur, cancelling the fire arms licence of the petitioner and the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by the appellate authority, rejecting his appeal.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a licence of DBBL Gun No.71090 granted to him in the year 1997. An FIR was lodged in 2005 in Case Crime No.1208 of 2005 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC due to political enmity developed out of Gram Pradhani election. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice thereafter by the District Magistrate on 4.1.2008 on the basis of a police report dated 26.12.2007. The petitioner could not submit his reply to the said show cause notice, despite its service upon him. Taking into account the filing of FIR in Case Crime No.1208 of 2005, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled.
It has been submitted that the appellate authority also did not consider the true facts and rejected the appeal arbitrarily. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been subsequently acquitted in the criminal case filed against him and he has brought a copy of the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.20, Sultanpur in Criminal Case no.9651 of 2009 on record by means of a supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.75427 of 2005 (Rajendra Deo Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 6.1.2012. This Court while considering the order of cancellation of fire arms licence, observed that the same was not validly passed as mere pendency of criminal case is not a sufficient ground for cancellation of fire arms licence.
The relevant extracts of the judgment cited before this Court is being quoted hereinbelow.
"Principle of Law emanates from the judgments are that the District Magistrate has the power to suspend/revoke the firearm license on the ground of pendency of a single criminal case but he shall record the reason for the same and he is further required to record the finding that the nature of criminal case was of such type that it can endanger the peace and tranquility of the society, if the licensee is allowed to keep his weapon. For recording such finding the District Magistrate can call the report from the Police and from other source such as local vigilance etc. The District Magistrate may also call the material with regard to the family background, past antecedent of the licensee, his criminal record, if any, and general reputation of the licensee in the society.
The provisions of the Arms Act cast obligation on the District Magistrate to apply his mind and consider the material before him objectively at both stages viz. while granting the license under section 13 of the arms Act exercising his power under section 17 of the Arms Act. While exercising his power under section 17 of the Arms Act he may not only rely on the Police Report of the local Police Station sent by the Junior Officer/Sub. Inspector of the Police and the advice of the 'Aslaha Babu' of his office. In large number of cases arising out of the Arms Act, Court finds that orders of the District Magistrate are perfunctory and inchoate and are based on report of Police Station concerned sometime only short conclusion are recorded by the District Magistrate in support of his order without disclosing any reason or application of mind.
In this State, political interference is common in grant and cancellation of the arms license. These unwarranted interference are fraught with the serious consequences on the law and order situation and the safety of the citizen. A gun in a wrong hand can play havoc with the life of the citizen and happiness of the victim's family. In United States most of the States have very liberal law relating to purchase of a weapon, there are no requirement of license or even permission for purchase of a lethal weapon. A citizen can walk in arms shop and can purchase a gun of his preference just like any other grocery item. But in recent years several incident occurred whereby on indiscriminate firing students and other innocent persons were killed. Now there is a rethinking in the United States on this issue and some States are thinking to control the abuse of gun by putting restriction permissible under their local law.
The Arms Act is a Central Act , it has given a wide power to the District Magistrate, it does not give power to District Magistrate to delegate his power. A perusal of various sections would indicate that it cast statutory duty on the District Magistrate to exercise his power objectively and not subjectively as there are some stray observations in some of the above mentioned decisions. Therefore, in my view it is the District Magistrate who is to consider the gravity of the offence in pending criminal case and its effect on the society. A single criminal act of a person can instill fear and insecurity in the neighbours of the licensee and the society in general. The Supreme Court in the case of Angoori Devi v. Union of India (1989)1 SCC 385 has considered the nature of the criminal Act and its impact on public and law order. The relevant extract is being quoted herein below :-
"12. The impact on "public order" and "law and order" depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquility, it may fall within the orbit of the public order. This is precisely the distinguishing feature between the two concepts. Sometimes, as observed by Venkatachaliah, J. in Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P. "What might be an otherwise simple 'law and order' situation might assume the gravity and mischief of a 'public order' problem by reason alone of the manner or circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried out." Necessarily, much depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it."
A law in absolute term cannot be laid down, the District Magistrate has to exercise his power on the facts of each case"
It is apparent from a perusal of the aforesaid judgment that in the said case, the District Magistrate had cancelled the fire arms licence of the writ petitioner only on the ground of pendency of criminal case. In all of such criminal cases, the writ petitioner stood acquitted thereafter.
I have perused the order impugned and the judgment referred to, by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the order impugned that FIR may have been lodged in Case Crime no.1208 of 2005, where charge sheet may have been filed but that was not the sole ground for cancellation of the aforesaid licence of the petitioner. The Licencing Authority has referred to the police report and the fact that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of licence and he was causing grave threat to the villagers of not only his village but the adjoining villages also. The nature of the petitioner is violent and there is eminent threat to public peace and security.
This Court, therefore, finds that the District Magistrate while cancelling the fire arms licence of the petitioner has applied his mind to the police report and also to the fact that the petitioner was causing a grave threat to public peace and security of not only his village but all adjoining villages.
The subjected satisfaction of the District Magistrate being apparent in the order impugned, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Sachin