Court No. - 54
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56088 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ratnesh Alias Manni Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- I.K. Chaturvedi,Afshan Shafaut Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Ms. Afshan Shafaut, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 16.5.2013 in Case No. 4/IX-2013,(State Vs. Ratnesh alias Manni Lal) under Section 17 of the Arms Act, by which the District Magistrate, has cancelled his fire-arm license as well as the order dated 5.7.2013 passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, by which Criminal Appeal No. 105/IX/2013 ( Ratensh alias Manni Lal Vs. State) filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, was partly allowed modifying the order dated 16.5.2013 to the effect that fire- arm license of the petitioner shall remain suspended till conclusion of the criminal case being case crime no. 111 of 2013.
The petitioner is holding Licence No. 5586/2755 of D.B.B.L. Gun no. 6840. It appears that one Smt. Mediya, Village Pradhan - Kurauli, lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner on 17.3.2013 which was registered as Case Crime No. 111 of 2013 under Sections 352,353, 332, 504, 286 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District- Banda, alleging that on 17.3.2013 while a meeting in presence of concerned officials and the public, was going on in the Village to allot the residential quarters to the poor persons of the village under the Lohia Avas Gramin Yajna, the petitioner came there with his licensed gun, started abusing in filthy language and fired two shots creating an atmosphere of panic there and disturbing the said meeting. Thereafter, license of the petitioner was suspended by the licensing authority under section 17(3) for a period of six month and a notice was issued to him to show cause as to why his license be not cancelled, vide order dated 1.4.2014. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 26.4.2013. Ultimately, the Licensing authority cancelled the firearm licence vide order dated 16.5.2013. Against the cancellation of his license, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 5.7.2013 as indicated above. Both these orders are impugned in the present petition.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on mere involvement in a criminal case, the fire arm-licence of the petitioner could not have been cancelled and further there was no material on record that the overt act assigned to the petitioner resulted in fear and terror amongst the persons. It is further contended that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.8.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3233 of 2019 in the aforesaid case, copy of the same has been appended as annexure no.1 to the rejoinder affidavit. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Court in Habib Vs. State of U.P., 2002 (44) ACC and numerous other decisions, wherein it has been held that a licence could not be cancelled on account of mere pendency of a criminal case. Paragraph-3 of the said judgment reads 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 Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire-arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed."
Learned Standing Counsel has refuted the above submissions and submits that on the materials available on record, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
The record reflects that the trial arising out of case Crime No. 111 of 2013 under Sections 352,353, 322, 504, 286 and 506 IPC against the petitioner, has already been concluded and the trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the aforesaid case, vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2017 in Criminal Case No. 676 of 2013. Challenging the said judgment and order dated 6.10.2017, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal being Appeal No. 56 of 2017, which too has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banda , vide judgment and order dated 9.8.2019 convicting and sentencing the petitioner (appellant therein) under section 332& 353 IPC.
Therefore, in the backdrop of the above facts, it cannot be argued at this stage that fire-arm licence of the petititioner is cancelled on the basis of mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case. As a matter of fact, now there are concurrent findings and judgment & order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner convicting him in serious offences under sections 332 & 353 IPC, that is (i) voluntarily causing hurt to deter the public servant from his duty, and (ii) assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.
In view of what has been stated above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ratio laid down in the decision in the case of Habib (supra) is of no help to the petitioner.
In so far as the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner that he has already been released on bail in Criminal Revision No. 3233 of 2019, vide order dated 22.8.2019 (annexure R.A.-1), is concerned, suffice it to say that the said revision has been admitted by the Court only on the question of sentence, meaning thereby the chapter of conviction stands closed in the said revision.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, no good ground exists warranting any interference with the impugned orders in exercise of the extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019/Akbar