Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Ram Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner And Others - Respondent
WRIT-C No. 56378 of 2006
Decided On : 07-02-2020
Arms Act, 1959 – Section 17 – Passed by the District Magistrate petitioner was granted licence of double-barrel gun was cancelled – Police of Police Station-Milak submitted a report dated 20.7.1999 to the District Magistrate/Collector, Rampur recommending cancellation of the petitioner’s fire arms licence, as it was not in the public interest that the fire arm remain with the petitioner was cancelled – Challenged – Held, Petitioner’s licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. The petitioner was later on acquitted of the criminal case by order – A perusal of the order of acquittal does not show the use of fire arm. After acquittal the very basis of the order of cancellation vanished. The finding of the District Magistrate as affirmed by the Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of public peace and the public security that the licence remained with the petitioner/licencee, is not based on any evidence/material, except the police reports which in their turn were in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. On mere apprehension expressed in the impugned orders that the petitioner would misuse the fire arm and would extend threat to the persons of the weaker section of the society, the arm licence could not be cancelled – Writ petition allowed. (Paras 36 and 38)
Facts of the Case
Passed by the District Magistrate petitioner was granted licence of double-barrel gun was cancelled – Police of Police Station-Milak submitted a report dated 20.7.1999 to the District Magistrate/Collector, Rampur recommending cancellation of the petitioner’s fire arms licence, as it was not in the public interest that the fire arm remain with the petitioner was cancelled – Challenged.
Finding of the Court
Petitioner’s licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. The petitioner was later on acquitted of the criminal case by order – A perusal of the order of acquittal does not show the use of fire arm. After acquittal the very basis of the order of cancellation vanished. The finding of the District Magistrate as affirmed by the Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of public peace and the public security that the licence remained with the petitioner/licencee, is not based on any evidence/material, except the police reports which in their turn were in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. On mere apprehension expressed in the impugned orders that the petitioner would misuse the fire arm and would extend threat to the persons of the weaker section of the society, the arm licence could not be cancelled.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. I have heard Sri Akash Gupta holding brief of Sri T.S. Dabas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.1.2003, passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur in Case No. 397 of 1999 under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, (State Vs. Ram Prasad) (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner’s Fire Arms Licence No. 1332/TTT of double-barrel gun No. 1595 was cancelled. The appellate order dated 24.8.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad dismissing the petitioner’s Appeal No. 26/02-03 under Section 18 of The Arms Act, 1959 (Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) District Rampur (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is also under challenge.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted licence No. 1332/TTT of double-barrel gun on 22.8.1997. A criminal case, bearing Crime Case No. 181 of 1999 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) of The Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Milak, District Rampur, was registered against the petitioner. In view thereof, the police of Police Station-Milak submitted a report dated 20.7.1999 to the District Magistrate/Collector, Rampur recommending cancellation of the petitioner’s fire arms licence, as it was not in the public interest that the fire arm remain with the petitioner.
4. A show cause notice dated 10.8.1999 was issued to the petitioner as to why his fire arm licence be not cancelled on the aforesaid ground of pendency of criminal case.
5. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice, that the petitioner did not misuse the fire arm and the Criminal Case No. 181 of 1999 was lodged due to partybandi in the village, which was pending in the court. The fire arm licence was not liable to be cancelled and the show cause notice deserved to be withdrawn.
6. The District Magistrate, Rampur after considering the petitioner’s reply, by order dated 2.1.2003 cancelled fire arm licence on the ground that in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner and considering the police reports dated 5.7.1999 and 8.10.2000, it was necessary to cancel the fire arm licence in public interest and public security.
7. After the order of cancellation dated 2.1.2003, the petitioner was acquitted in Session Trial No. 559 of 2000, arising out of Crime Case No. 181 of 1999 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by judgment dated 17.1.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Rampur.
8. The petitioner filed appeal No. 26/02-03 (Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 challenging the order of cancellation of fire arm licence dated 2.1.2003, before the Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad. The petitioner filed copy of the order of his acquittal dated 17.1.2003 in the aforesaid appeal.
9. The Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad dismissed the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 24.8.2006 and affirmed the order of cancellation dated 2.1.2003, taking the same view as in the order dated 2.1.2003 based on the police report that if the licence was restored, the petitioner will misuse the fire arm and terrorise the person of weaker sections. With respect to the judgment of acquittal dated 17.1.2003, it held that the petitioner was acquitted as the witnesses became hostile and there was some compromise between the accused and the victim.
10. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders dated 24.8.2006 and 2.1.2003.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that mere pendency of a criminal case was no ground to cancel the petitioner’s fire arm licence. He submits that at the time when the order dated 2.1.2003 cancelling the fire arm licence w
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
