Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. P. S. CHAUHAN
SITA RAM DIXIT - Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, ALLAHABAD DIVISION - Respondents
W. P. 7257 Of 1990
Decided On : 07/31/1991
ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 17(3) - REVOCATION OF FIREARM LICENCE - GROUNDS - CRIMINAL TENDENCY AND ENMITY WITH OTHERS - ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL CASES - NO MATERIAL TO SUPPORT FINDING OF CRIMINAL TENDENCY OR ENMITY - REVOCATION ORDER BASED ON SPECULATIVE LIKELIHOOD OF MISUSE OF FIREARM - NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a freedom fighter and political and social worker, had his firearm licenses revoked by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner on the ground that he was a person of criminal tendency and had enmity with others. The petitioner challenged the orders, arguing that they were arbitrary and based on no material germane to the requirement of law relating to the grounds for revocation as provided under sub-sec. (3) of S. 17 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases that were the basis for the revocation of his licenses. After acquittal, the very basis for revocation was non est. There was no material to support the finding that the petitioner was a person of criminal tendency or had enmity with others. The court also found that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to meet the police report that was made the basis for drawing an inference that he was a person of criminal tendency. The court held that the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and were based on considerations other than those provided by law.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner revoking the petitioner's firearm licenses were arbitrary and based on no material germane to the requirement of law relating to the grounds for revocation as provided under sub-sec. (3) of S. 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to meet the police report that was made the basis for drawing an inference that he was a person of criminal tendency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and were based on considerations other than those provided by law. The court found that there was no material to support the finding that the petitioner was a person of criminal tendency or had enmity with others. The court also found that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to meet the police report that was made the basis for drawing an inference that he was a person of criminal tendency.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner. The court directed that the petitioner's weapons and licenses be restored to him and that he be entitled to get his licenses renewed in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is freedom fighter, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order dated 16-1-1987 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (City) Kanpur Nagar revoking his fire arm licence in respect of a DBBL gun (licence No. 2909) and a revolver (licence No. 8757) and the order dated 26-2-1990 passed by the Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad in appeal directed against the aforesaid order of revocation seeking the relief for quashing these orders.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to the controversy in the petition are that: (A) the petitioner, who is a freedom fighter, political and social worker having received a recognition for his service from the people of Kanpur, was elected as Corporator in the Municipal Corporation, Kanpur Nagar and was also elected as Dy. Mayor. (b) The petitioner was a licensee in respect of a gun and a revolver. On account of a criminal case (crime No. 824/76) under Ss. 147/ 148 / 149 / 307, IPC the fire arms of the petitioner were deposited with the local dealer M/s. Swadeshi Gun House, Meston Road, Kanpur and after a lapse of about five years, the petitioner was issued two separate show cause notices for revocation of his two fire arm licences. In both these notices, the foundation for revocation of the fire arm licences was involvement of the petitioner in criminal case (crime No. 824 of 1976) as reported by the police. The notices were duly replied to by the petitioner on 15-7-1981. (c) The Sessions trial No. 255/ M of 1977 State v. Kishan Sharma and others under Ss. 147/148/149/307, IPC wherein the petitioner was one of the accused, resulted in acquittal and the petitioner filed a certified copy of the judgment relating to his acquittal in the above case before the District Magistrate along with an application for restoration of his fire arms and dropping of the proceedings for revocation of his licences. A report was asked from the Senior Supdt, of Police, Kanpur regarding acquittal, which was submitted in I 1-4-1984 confirming the fact of the acquittal of the petitioner in the above case and recommending for restoration of the fire arm licences of the petitioner. There was another case (crime No. 609 of 1981) under Ss. 453/186/504/ 506, IPC which was subsequent one and it also resulted in acquittal on 13-12-1984. The petitioner filed a certified copy of the judgment relating to his acquittal before the Addl. District Magistrate,. (d) Addl. District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Magistrate) passed an order revoking both the fire arm licences of the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal u/ S. 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner ). In appeal the order of the District Magistrate was maintained and the appeal was dismissed on 20-2-1984. (e) The aforesaid two orders were challenged by way of a writ petition No. of 1988 (Sita Ram Dixit v. Commissioner) in this court, wherein this court while setting aside the order of the Commissioner dated 20-4-1987 and 5-1-1988 directed for deciding the appeal on merit after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Consequent upon the remand by this Court, the Commissioner decided the appeal on 26-2-1990. These two orders dated 16-1-1987 and 26-2-1990 are subject matter of controversy in the present petition.
( 3 ) THE District Magistrate while accepting the position of acquittal of the petitioner in criminal cases (crime No. 824 of 1976) and (crime No. 609 of 1981) revoked the fire arm licences of the petitioner on the assumption that the petitioner has got enmity with other persons and his son Sri Alok Kumar Dixit is a noted criminal and the possibility of the misuse of the fire arms cannot be ruled out. The Commissioner dismissed the appea
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
