(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi, the Licencing Authority, cancelling the firearms licence of the petitioner dated 17.12.2004 and the order passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal No.529/2004-05 dated 27.6.2007 by which, the appeal has been rejected.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a SBBL Gun for which, a licence was issued in 1973, and for several years, the petitioner has never misused his Gun. All of a sudden, licence of the petitioner was suspended and a show cause notice was issued to him by the District Magistrate, Hardoi on 25.7.2003. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of suspension, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate, Hardoi to be considered afresh.
4. The petitioner filed his objection to the show cause notice wherein he clearly stated that he is a Government servant and he lives in Unnao and not in Hardoi and there is no apprehension of misuse of firearm as has been wrongly reported by the Police. However, the firearms licence has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Hardoi, observing that the petitioner's son is an accused in Case Crime No.129 of 2003 under Sections 452, 376 IPC in which, later on, after the death of the victim, three more Sections have been added i.e. 306, 511 and 506 IPC. It has been further observed by the District Magistrate that the petitioner by misuse of his firearms licence is trying to intimidate the witnesses and affect the proceedings of trial, therefore, the firearms licence has been cancelled with the observation that in case the petitioner's son is acquitted in the criminal case, the petitioner may apply for fresh firearms licence.
5. It has been further submitted that the appellate authority without looking into the judgments cited in appeal has merely affirmed the order passed by the Licencing Authority and dismissed the appeal on 27.6.2007. It has further been submitted that it is settled law by this Court that a firearms licence cannot be cancelled only because of pendency of a criminal case or only because there is apprehension of misuse of firearms licence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Sabir Husain Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (73) ACC 830. The judgment rendered on 6.4.2011 in Writ Petition No.5981 (MS) of 2009: Pramod Kumar Awasthi vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others, has also been cited wherein this Court while placing reliance upon the Full Bench decision in Chhanga Prasad Sahu vs. State of U.P. 1984 (10) ALR 223, Kailash Nath and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 1985 (22) ACC 353 and Rana Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P., 1994 JIC 72 (All), has observed that the fire arms licence cannot be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement of the licencee in a criminal case.
7. This Court has carefully perused the two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Sabir Husain (supra), the cancellation order confirmed in appeal was challenged by the petitioner on the ground of police report being submitted with regard to two criminal cases pending against the petitioner therein. It was submitted before the Court that in both the criminal cases, the petitioner had been later on, acquitted as the prosecution had failed to prove its case and the offence could not be proved beyond doubt. This Court observed that mere pendency of criminal trial was not enough to cancel the firearms licence of the writ petitioner, moreso when there was only apprehension of misuse of firearm during trial. The petitioner stood acquitted in the criminal trial and the grounds mentioned in the cancellation order have thus vanished.
8. The facts of the present case are different.
9. In the case of Pramod Kumar Awasthi (supra), where judgment has been rendered on 6.4.2011, the licence of the writ petitioner was cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case and this Court on the basis of Division Bench judgment in Sheo Prasad Misra vs. District Magistrate, Basti and others, 1979 (16) ACC 6, and the Full Bench decision in Chhanga Prasad Sahu (supra), observed that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of firearms licence.
10. The case of the petitioner stands on a different footing as in the case of the petitioner, his son has been convicted in the criminal case ultimately resulting in punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The victim of the crime Km. Poonam had later on died and the accused had been charged of breaking into the house and raping the girl.
11. The police report on the basis of which, the Licencing Authority has passed the order, clearly mentions that the petitioner's firearms licence had been misused for intimidating the witnesses so that they could not depose before the trial court.
12. The Licencing Authority has not cancelled the firearms licence only because of pendency of criminal case. The licence has also not been cancelled only because of apprehension of misuse of firearm. There is a subjective satisfaction indicated in the order of the Licencing Authority that the petitioner had actually misused his firearm for intimidating the witnesses. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of actual misuse of firearm licence for intimidating the witnesses and trying to influence the trial.
13. This Court, therefore, does not find any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned.
14. The writ petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 Sachin