Heard K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel and perused the record.
Under challenge are the order dated 17.03.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Kheri under Section 17 (3) Arms Act cancelling the fire arm license of the petitioner and the appellate order dated 31.08.2005 whereby the appeal, preferred against the order dated 17.03.2004, has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted license of fire arm for rifle in the year 1993 and since then there was no complaint for its misuse in any manner. The petitioner does not have any criminal history and the said license was obtained for his personal security as the petitioner is a resident of village Naubasta, Police Station-Dhauraha, District-Kheri where there is enmity in the village.
It is further submitted that a first information report was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. against one Sri Ramu and during investigation, the police had implicated the father of the petitioner as one of the accused. However, the firearm of the petitioner was not used in the commission of the alleged offence and ultimately by the judgment and order dated 29.05.1998, the father of the petitioner was acquitted. It is further submitted that the petitioner's firearm was not in any manner said to have been used in the commission of the alleged offence and for the same the license of the petitioner cannot be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) LCD-105 (Ram Murti Madhukar Vs District Magistrate, Sitapur) and submitted that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of Arms Act, are not sufficient grounds for cancelling the arm license and there has to be some material on the basis of which the authority concerned may come to the conclusion that the arm license has been misused.
Learned standing counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit, submitted that the father of the petitioner was an accused in the commission of murder and for that purpose a criminal case was lodged against him. The competent authority had come to the conclusion that since a criminal case has been lodged against the father of the petitioner, therefore, it is not in public interest that the petitioner shall be allowed to possess a firearm.
I have gone through the records, the impugned order dated 17.03.2004 indicates that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled simply because a criminal case was lodged in which the father of the petitioner was made an accused. It does not indicate that the petitioner or his firearm in any manner involved in the commission of alleged offence. The competent authority has merely mentioned that it is not in the public interest that the petitioner shall be allowed to possess firearm. However, it does not indicate as to how and why the petitioner should not be allowed to possess firearm for which license was obtained by him for his personal security. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal history and he has never misused his firearm. It is not sufficient that merely on apprehension the license may be cancelled.
It is also to be noted that the Appellate Authority, without properly considering the relevant material on record, has observed that a criminal case under Section, 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. was registered against the licensee/petitioner whereas the fact remains that no criminal case was ever registered against the petitioner.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 17.03.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the Appellate order dated 31.08.2005 is also not sustainable. Therefore, the order dated 31.08.2005 contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 17.03.2004 contained as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 06.09.2010 Adhir