Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23303 of 2014 Petitioner :- Shamshad Ahmad Respondent :- Commissioner Moradabad Division & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Misra,Gopal Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Tripathi
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 3; and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 30.12.2013 and 20.02.2014 passed by the respondents 2 and 1 respectively by which the arms licence of the petitioner for DBBL gun has been cancelled and thereafter appeal of the petitioner against the order of cancellation has been dismissed.
The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 26.10.2013, which disclosed that there was a case registered against him, under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, at P.S. Chandpur as Case Crime No.31 of 2010 which was pending; and that according to police report there was tension between two parties and therefore proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. had been initiated as a consequence whereof, the petitioner/licencee was required to submit surety bond for maintaining good conduct. Hence, under the circumstances, it was alleged in the notice that continuance of arms licence with the petitioner was not justified.
The petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice stating that he was a lawyer by profession and had also been appointed a public notary and was falsely implicated in the criminal case and merely on ground of implication in a criminal case, particularly, where there was no allegation of misuse of fire arms, there was no justification to cancel the arms licence.
By the impugned order dated 30.02.2013, the District Magistrate, Bijnor cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner on the assumption that there was a possibility of the petitioner misusing his licensed weapon on account of the cases cited in the show cause notice. Against the order cancelling the licence, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner which was dismissed by impugned order dated 20.02.2014.
Assailing the orders dated 30.12.2013 and 20.02.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no material on record to show that the petitioner had misused his weapon or in future would misuse his weapon. Otherwise, mere pendency of a criminal case, which does not even disclose violent behaviour on the part of the petitioner, would not be sufficient to cancel an arms licence. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as case crime No.31 of 2010 is concerned, a final report was submitted and the proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. had been dropped therefore there is no longer any justification to deprive the petitioner of his weapon, particularly, when the petitioner is neither a convictee nor there is any material to show that the petitioner had misused his weapon or had exhibited any violent behaviour. In support of his submission that mere implication in a criminal case is not sufficient to cancel an arms licence, a decision of this Court in Jageshwar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(8) ADJ 718 has been cited.
Learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the order passed by the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner but he has not been able to demonstrate as to how on ground of implication of the petitioner in a case concerning offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B, 504, 506 IPC inference could be drawn that the petitioner would misuse the fire arm for which he holds a licence. Learned Standing Counsel also does not dispute that the proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. is no longer pending as has been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition.
I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
Though it cannot be laid as a general rule that arms licence cannot be cancelled on mere implication in a criminal case but to cancel a licence on mere implication in a criminal case, the nature of the allegations constituting offence should be such that a logical inference could be drawn that licencee is not a person fit to hold licence or that maintaining licence with him might endanger public peace or public safety. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner is not in respect of any violent behaviour or in respect of any act which may suggest that he may misuse the licence. Mere implication in a case of cheating, unconnected with issuance of license, by itself, may not be sufficient for the licensing authority to come to a conclusion that the licence holder would misuse his weapon or is not fit to hold a licence. In so far as proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. are concerned, they are only for the purpose of ensuring that public peace is not breached and those proceedings are temporary in nature and any order passed in those proceedings may not be reflective of ineligibility of the licencee to hold licence. Otherwise also, the said proceeding has been terminated.
In view of the above, considering that the petitioner is an advocate by profession and there is no material on record to show that he has been convicted in any offence or has been implicated in a case which may be suggestive of violent streaks in him rendering him unfit to hold a licence, this Court considers it appropriate to quash the orders dated 20.02.2014 and 30.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad and the District Magistrate, Bijnore respectively. The petitioner would be entitled to submit an application for renewal of his licence which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of filing, provided it is submitted, after completing all formalities, within a period of three weeks from today. In case it is found that the petitioner is otherwise not entitled for renewal of the licence on account of his subsequent involvement in any other case, then it shall be open to the licensing authority to reject the renewal application after recording reasons.
The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 AKShukla/-