Point of Law: Arms licence suspended/cancelled on ground of pendency of a criminal case/cases against licensee, subsequent acquittal itself be not a sole ground for restoration of arms licence, but nature of acquittal would still remain a ground for consideration.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issue for consideration in this writ petition is:-

‘Whether an aquittal in a criminal case/cases of a licensee (under the Arms Act, 1959) itself is relevant and sufficient ground to alter/set-aside/review the order of suspension/cancellation of the arms licence passed (under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959) due to pendency of said criminal case/cases on the ground that very basis is now wiped out’? or

‘Whether the nature of acquittal i.e. honorable acquittal/acquittal granting benefit of doubt/prosecution unable to prove case beyond reasonable doubt, would still be relevant and sufficient ground for subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority to continue suspension/revocation of the arms licence specifically in cases where there was allegation of misuse of fire arm or offences of serious nature such as offences are against the State, offence against public tranquillity, offences affecting human body, offences affecting life, and sexual offences etc.?

2. P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since subsequently there was an acquittal in the criminal case, the basis of the notice for cancellation of arms licence itself disappears, therefore, the nature or manner of the acquittal was immaterial and consequently the order of cancellation of arms licence ought not to have passed. In support of his submission he has relied upon following judgments, Ram Murat Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 (2) AWC 1079, Virendra Singh Vs. Station Officer, P.S. Kabrai and others, 2002 (2) AWC 1080, Anil Kumr Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Pratapgarh and others, Writ Petition No;878 of 1979 decided on September 22, 1994, Lalji Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and another, 1999 (4) A.W.C. 2952 , Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (3) AWC 2130.

3. In the present case, the licensing authority had taken note of nature of acquittal i.e. petitioner was granted benefit of doubt and considered that licensed arm was used in occurrence and injured remained under medical treatment, therefore, cancelled the fire arm licence as it deemed necessary for security of public peace and for public order.

4. Per contra, Mrs. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently argued that Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1959”) provides that the licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period or to revoke the arms licence as it deem necessary for security of the public peace or for public safety. The satisfaction of the licensing authority is in the nature of subjective satisfaction, therefore, the nature of acquittal i.e. whether the acquittal is honorable acquittal or on the basis of benefit of doubt or prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt would be a relevant factor for consideration/subjective satisfaction that still it would be necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to revoke/suspend the arms licence or not.

5. The licensing authority while granting licence may take note of applicant’s criminal antecedent, general behaviour in public, social reputation, family background, threat to person or family to ascertain as to whether there is a reasonable possibility of misuse of fire arm in future, therefore, she further submitted that acquittal in a criminal case itself, ignoring the nature of acquittal would not be a sufficient ground for consideration of grant of licence or to set-aside the order of suspension/revocation of arms licence, in case the said order was passed due to pendency of a criminal case where subsequently order of acquittal was also passed. The nature of acquittal i.e. by granting benefit of doubt or prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt or honorable acquittal would still be relevant and material factor for subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the security of public peace or for