IMPORTANT POINT
The mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify the cancellation of a firearm licence, especially when the individual has been acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was granted license No. 982/PII for DBBL Gun (12 Bore) No.9854/03 in the year 2003. In the year 2008, a criminal case was registered under Section 302 IPC, in which, petitioner was not named. The aforementioned criminal case was proceeded and petitioner was implicated during investigation. On the basis of aforementioned criminal case u/s 302 IPC, a show cause notice dated 26.04.2008 was issued in the name of petitioner and on the basis of ex-parte order dated 26.12.2008, licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi, and the Commissioner, vide order dated 03.06.2009, dismissed the appeal, hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 and 3.6.2009 passed by the respondent no.2 and 3 (Annexure-2 & 3) to this writ petition.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to grant renewal of the License no.982/P II DBBL Gun No.12 No.9854/03 of the petitioner for DBBL Gun for which renewal fee has already been deposit through treasury challan.

(III) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. This Court vide order dated 24.7.2009 directed the Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit accordingly, affidavits are exchanged between the parties.

4. A supplementary affidavit, dated 13.12.2022, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner annexing the copy of the judgement of Criminal Court dated 1.12.2021 passed in S.T. No.272/2008, under Section 302/34 IPC, by which, the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforementioned criminal case.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was granted arms licence according to the procedure prescribed under the Arms Act and Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case, which is also illegal. He submitted that the aforementioned criminal case has been finally decided by the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. He further submitted that considering the evidence adduced in the criminal case as well as the final judgment passed by the court concerned it is fully demonstrated that the petitioner has not used his firearm in the aforementioned criminal case as such the ground for cancellation is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the statement recorded in the aforementioned criminal case as well as the final judgment passed in Criminal Case fully demonstrate that petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforementioned criminal case. He placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2002 (2) J.Cr.C. 32, Prem vs. State of Uttaranchal and another in support of his argument.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, submitted that the firearm license of the petitioner was rightly cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case under Section 302 IPC. He further submitted that mere acquittal in the aforementioned criminal case will not amount to restore the firearm licence of the petitioner. He further submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2021 0 Supreme (All) 840 Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & 4 Ors. in support of his arguement.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the re