IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
Raj Kumar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2132 of 2017
Decided On : 17-10-2019
Arms Act, 1959 – Section 17 – Cancellation of licence on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner – Licensing authority making an order varying a licence or suspending or cancelling licence has to record in writing reasons and furnish the holder of licence a draft submission of the same – No reason assigned for cancelling the licence nor any independent application of mind was reflected from the order – Impugned order quashed. (Para 1 and 6)
2008(3) PLJR 186; AIR 1987 Pat. 122 (FB) – Relied Upon.
JUDGMENT :
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.10.2016 passed in Arms Appeal no. 49 of 2015 by the learned Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, whereby and whereunder the learned Commissioner has been pleased to confirm the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Collector, Gaya who has canceled the Gun License no. 3426 of 1991 and the Rifle License no. 3389 of 1990 of the petitioner herein on the ground that 11 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted two arms license, after following the due process of law, one for the D.B.B.L. gun bearing Gun License no. 3426 of 1991 and another for Rifle bearing Rifle License no. 3389 of 1990. Both the licenses were renewed from time to time as per the provisions of law. The petitioner along with others was named in Rampur PS case no. 232 of 2012 pursuant to which search was conducted by the police at Petitioner's residence and D.B.B.L. gun along with some empty cartridges were recovered. Subsequently, the petitioner in the month of January, 2015 went to the office of the District Collector, Gaya to get the aforementioned arms licenses renewed, where he was informed by the office clerk of the District Magistrate's office that his licenses have already been cancelled. On being given the information about the cancellation of the arms licenses, the petitioner applied for the copy of the cancellation order passed by the District Collector, Gaya dated 28.02.2013 vide Memo no. 65 dated 01.03.2013 and got the certified copy of the same on 08.01.2015. The arms licenses of the petitioner was cancelled with immediate effect and the petitioner was directed by the District Magistrate, Gaya to deposit the arms in the Civil Lines police station. The order was passed in light of recommendation made by the SHO, Rampur vide Letter no. 2077/12 dated 31.12.2012, where it was stated that petitioner was named in Rampur PS case no. 232 of 2012 and was person with a criminal background, having eleven criminal cases pending against him, which was further affirmed by the Superintendent of Police (City), Gaya vide letter no. 318 dated 28.01.2013. The petitioner had then deposited his arms having Rifle License no. 3389 of 1990 along with 10 rounds of ammunition in the Civil Lines PS on 10.01.2015.
It is the further case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the ex-parte and arbitrary order dated 28.02.2013, passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya, the petitioner filed an appeal assailing the said order before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya vide Arms Appeal no. 49 of 2015 on 19.03.2015. The learned Commissioner in mechanical manner has affirmed the order of the District Magistrate, Gaya cancelling the arms licenses of the petitioner on the sole ground of criminal cases being pending against him by an order dated 20.10.2016, passed in Arms Appeal no. 49 of 2015. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to defend his case before the District Magistrate, Gaya and the order was passed behind his back in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of eleven cases mentioned by the District Magistrate, Gaya, which are the reason for cancellation of the arms licenses of the petitioner, in eight cases namely Rampur PS case no. 95 of 2012, Kotwali PS case no. 169 of 2007, Rampur PS case no. 172 of 2003, Bodh Gaya PS case no. 135 of 2000, Rampur PS case no. 2 of 2000, Rampur PS case no. 75 of 1995, Rampur PS case no. 39 of 1987 and Rampur PS case no. 26 of 1984, the petitioner has already been acquitted, hence the arms licenses of the petitioner has been cancelled arbitrarily by the respondents. As far as other cases namely Rampur PS case no. 26 of 1984, Rampur PS case no. 39 of 1987 and Rampur PS case no. 172 of 2003 are concerned, the petitioner has been acquitted by the
Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1987 PLJR 385 (FB): AIR 1987 PAT 122 (FB)
Mahesh Sharma v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 186
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.