Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54692 of 2017 Petitioner :- Nipendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner's arms licence was cancelled vide order dated 2.5.2005 on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner being Case Crime No.146 of 2003 under Section 302 I.P.C. considering that the licensed weapon was used by the petitioner in the aforesaid offence and thus it was deemed necessary for security of public peace and for public order to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner.
3. According to the material available on record, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial court in the aforesaid criminal case vide order dated 6.12.2008. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal in the year 2013 under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 which was dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2017 considering that the petitioner was involved in a case of murder and the learned trial court has acquitted the petitioner on the basis of hostile witnesses and granted benefit of doubt. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the aforesaid impugned orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very basis of the impugned orders of cancellation of arms licence is not available with him as the petitioner has already been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case.
5. Aforesaid submission was opposed by the learned Standing Counsel who submitted that the issue involved in this case has been dealt by this Court in Writ-C No.4947 of 2019 (Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, decided on 22.10.2021), wherein following issues were framed for adjudication: .
"Whether an acquittal in a criminal case/cases of a licensee (under 'the Act of 1959') itself is relevant and sufficient ground to alter/set-aside/review the order of suspension/cancellation of the arms licence passed (under Section 17 of 'the Act of 1959') due to pendency of said criminal case/cases on the ground that very basis is now wiped out'? or ''Whether the nature of acquittal i.e. honorable acquittal/acquittal granting benefit of doubt/prosecution unable to prove case beyond reasonable doubt, would still be relevant and sufficient ground for subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority to continue suspension/revocation of the arms licence specifically in cases where there was allegation of misuse of fire arm or offences of serious nature such as offences are against the State, offence against public tranquility, offences affecting human body, offences affecting life, and sexual offences etc."
6. After considering the aforesaid issues in detail, this Court in Indrajeet Singh (Supra) has held as under :-
"15. Considering the scheme to grant, refuse, suspension and revocation of arms licence under the Act, 1959 and the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority on the basis of material available after taking into consideration various factors mentioned in Sections 13,14 and 17 of the Act, 1959 and also medical certificate, threat perception, genuine requirement, no objection, police report, antecedent verification report, undertaking for safe storage of fire arms etc., by way of filling of requisite forms prescribed under schedule of Arms Rule, 2016 subject to restrictions provided under Rules 32 and 112 etc., the important considerations while granting or revoking the arms licence is likelihood or actual misuse of firearm and it is important for the licensing authority to take appropriate decision considering the factors mentioned above including the nature of acquittal to form a reasoned opinion whether to refuse, grant, suspend or revoke the licence. The nature/manner of acquittal is very relevant factor in disciplinary proceedings as well as in selection on various posts such as police, judiciary and army etc. As referred above, antecedent verification report is also a very important consideration to grant or to refuse arms licence, such report includes general behaviour of the applicant and his involvement in the criminal cases etc.
16. The words "public peace and public order" are normally considered to maintain peace and order at public at large. However, there may be instances where though the immediate danger may be to an individual, but it may have threat to the public at large. For example a fire arm licensee entered inside the house of a neighbour and threatened him or undertook blank firing by licensed weapon or otherwise, though it may be itself be violative or not violative of conditions fire arm licence, but this act is not only a threat to an individual, but is definitely likely to cause disturbance of public peace and public order to public at large, therefore, in these circumstances for security of public peace or for public order, the licensing authority may suspend or revoke the arms licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act, of 1959. Similarly, a person/licensee who is involved in a case of murder or attempt to murder or any offence affecting human body or any other serious offence, there may be likelihood of breach of public peace or public order.
17. The words used in Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959 is "deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety" i.e. in order to secure public peace or for public safety, the licensing authority if deems necessary, may suspend or revoke the licence. It is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may take place to revoke or suspend the arms licence. The licensing authority on the basis of material available, if deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety may revoke the arms licence. Therefore, at this stage subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority comes into picture and if the licensing authority finds that due to certain act whether it is affecting to an individual or public at large, may for the security of public peace or for public safety, may suspend or revoke the arms licence. This is a precautionary measure, therefore, it is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may occur. Therefore, even the criminal antecedent of the licensee are very important factor for consideration for granting licence. In these circumstances, even pendency of a criminal case involving serious offence may be sufficient to suspend or revoke the arms licence. Similarly, even after the acquittal, the nature of acquittal may be an important factor to consider whether there may be a likelihood of disturbance of public peace and safety especially in cases where the offences are against the State, offence against public tranquillity, offences affecting human body, offences affecting life, and sexual offences etc.
18. The licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by this Court which is no way connected or does not have any inkling of situations. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licencing authority on the basis of situation then existing, except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material. (See Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1997 (34) ACC 499).
19. There must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licensee is not fit to continue holding of licence. If the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that a continued existence of fire arms licence with a person charged with various offence may endanger security of public peace and public safety then revocation of licence under Section 17 cannot be said to arbitrary or without jurisdiction. (See 1999 SCC Online Pat 206, (1999) 3 PLJR 203, Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others.)
20. In view of above discussion, the issue under consideration is decided in following terms. The arms licence suspended/cancelled on the ground of pendency of a criminal case/cases against the licensee, the subsequent acquittal itself be not a sole ground for restoration of the arms licence, but the nature of acquittal would still remain a ground for consideration to continue with the suspension/cancellation particularly where offence were of murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, moral turpitude, etc." [emphasis supplied]
7. In the present case, the petitioner was involved in a case of murder wherein allegations were that the licenced weapon was misused by him and the deceased died due to fire arm injury.
8. I have gone through the order passed by the learned trial court wherein the trial court has granted acquittal to the petitioner because the witnesses were declared hostile, therefore, granted the petitioner benefit of doubt.
9. As held in the case of Indrajeet Singh (Supra), where there are serious offence and misuse of licensed weapon was alleged, the nature of acquittal would be an important factor. Therefore, considering that the petitioner was involved in a serious offence where there was misuse of licenced firearm and was granted acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt, in view of the above, referred judgment of this Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh (Supra), the appellate authority has rightly taken the view considering the nature of acquittal and it was deemed necessary for security of public peace and for public safety to cancel the arms license of the petitioner.
10. There is no illegality in the impugned orders.
11. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date:-25.10.2021 SB