Point of Law: mere involvement in a solitary criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of a firearm license.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.1.2013 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition) and order dated 5.9.2013 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure no.2 to this writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to return/issue the arm licence no. A.B. 13832017 of the petitioner.

(iii) issue a writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost to the petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that petitioner was granted an arms licence for rifle bearing no. A-B 13832017 after due enquiry. A criminal case bearing Case No.1189 of 2010, under Sections 452, 323 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner by his brother which was pending at that time. The above mentioned rifle was robbed from the petitioner by the elder brother-Munish Chandra Gupta hence F.I.R. was also lodged by petitioner on 21.02.2012, under Section 395, 397 I.P.C. Petitioner was issued show cause notice as to why his licence be not cancelled under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, petitioner replied the notice but respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Moradabad cancelled the petitioner’s firearm licence by order dated 11.01.2013 in view of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner as well as on the ground that petitioner can misuse his firearm in future.

4. Aggrieved from the order dated 11.01.2013 petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before respondent no.3-Commissioner Moradabad, District-Moradabad, which was registered as Appeal No. 25 of 2012-13 (Umesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P.), the appeal filed by petitioner was also dismissed by cryptic order dated 05.09.2013 hence this writ petition.

5. During pendency of the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 04.04.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 1189 of 2010, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 & 427 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District-Moradabad. The copy of the judgment has been annexed as Annexure No. RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner on 01.05.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was implicated in a false criminal case in which he was acquitted by judgment dated 04.04.2015 and from the judgment, it reveals that firearm of the petitioner has not been used at all. He further submits that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public safety, as such, firearm licence of the petitioner could not be cancelled. He further submits that at the time of cancellation of firearm licence of the petitioner i.e. 11.01.2013, criminal case was pending but during pendency of the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that ground for issue of show cause notice, suspension and ultimately cancellation of the petitioner’s firearm licence is that one and precisely one criminal case which was registered against the petitioner and in view of the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act, petitioner’s firearm licence cannot be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the five judgments of this Hon'ble Court in which it has been held that firearm licence cannot be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement in criminal case, Honb’le Court has also noticed that the licensee have been subsequently acquitted in the criminal case lodged against hi