IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act, emphasizing the need for due process and satisfaction that the licensee did not have constructive possession of the weapon at the time of recovery.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ganesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, he has cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner as well as order dated 03.11.2015 wherein the appeal filed against the order of the cancellation has been rejected by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was issued an Arm Licece No. 659/95 DBBL Gun No. 7402115. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his cousin namely, Sheo Pujan in Case Crime No. 842 of 2010, under Section 3/25/30 of the Arms Act at Police Station Phool Behad, District Kheri where it was alleged that the licensed gun of the petitioner was recovered from Sheo Pujan. Merely on account of recovery of the gun, notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his licence be not cancelled. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and denied the allegations therein and further submitted that there is no criminal case lodged against the petitioner and only for a short period of time had kept the gun at a particular place and left. When he returned back he found that the gun has been taken away by the police parties and an first information report was lodged. It seems that the petitioner did not participate any further in the proceedings before the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.09.2012 was passed by the District Magistrate holding that the allegations against the petitioner were correct and cancelled his arm licence.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of his arm licence, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. Before the Commissioner, the petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled against him were false and that the gun was never given in the custody of Sheo Pujan and it is only the fact that the said gun was kept at a plot under the control of Sheo Pujan fromwhere the police team raided and recovered the said weapon. He stated that there was no misuse of any condition of the arm licence and merely on conjectures and hypothesis, the said licence has been cancelled. He further submits that there is no material before the Licensing Authority to come to a conclusion that there was any violation of the condition of the licence and consequently, prayed for allowing of the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Magistrate. The Commissioner has duly recorded the contention of the petitioner and reiterated the findings recorded by the Licensing Authority and rejected his appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly merely even if the allegations levelled against him are found to be correct then also it does not construe as a violation of the condition of the arm licence. He further submitted that there was no material before the Licensing Authority to have come to a conclusion that there was violation of the condition of the licence necessitating cancellation of licence. In this regard, he has submitted that though he objected to the allegations levelled against him but none of the objections were considered. He further submitted that the allegations were never proved as no one appeared before the Licensing Authority to prove that the licensed weapon issued to the petitioner was found in the custody of Sheo Pujan.

6. He further submits that along with the show cause notice no material or any statement was made available to the petitioner from which it could be ascertained that there was sufficient material in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

7. I have heard