Cancellation of an arms license requires a factual basis for future misuse; lack of evidence renders the cancellation legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram D. Chauhan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that arms license of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Bijnor by order dated 15.03.2007. The grounds for cancellation of the arms license was that police have sent a report dated 11.11.2003 with regard to the fact that petitioner, who is a licensee against whom NCR No. 24 of 2003 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. has been filed, has threatened one Chandan Singh of causing injury by firearm. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no injury was in fact caused by the firearm nor the firearm was ever used. The firearm of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has misused his arms license and there is apprehension that the petitioner may in future misuse the arms license against the public tranquility. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the NCR No. 24 of 2003 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. have been closed by the police themselves and in this respect necessary averments have been made in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no prosecution has been made in pursuance of the aforesaid NCR. He further submits that in all the cases pending against the petitioner which has been shown in the impugned order dated 15.3.2007 the petitioner has been acquitted which has been stated in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition and the acquittal order of the petitioner in all the cases have been annexed in the supplementary affidavit at page no. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit to submit that the aforesaid facts have not been denied by the State except that the Case Crime No. 133 of 1992 is pending in which the petitioner has also been acquitted by the judgment dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, District Bijnor. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed in the appeal is not tenable in law.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the prayer of writ petition and submits that the petitioner found involved in one of the crime for threatening one Chandan Singh of causing firearm injury. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute the fact that the aforesaid NCR was not converted into a prosecution case. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State also does not dispute that in all the cases petitioner has already been acquitted as per paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit.

5. It is to be seen that in the present case the arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 15.03.2007 and thereafter the appeal of the petitioner has already been rejected by order dated 28.4.2011. The primary ground for cancellation of the arms license is to the effect that the petitioner has misused his firearm license by threatening one Chandan Singh by causing injury by firearm. It is not the case of the State that firearm has been used in causing injury. The only case of State is that there was a threatening of causing injury by firearm. Although the NCR No. 24 of 2003 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. has culminated into closure of proceedings which means that the State has not found any truth in the allegation and as such proceedings have been closed.

6. In respect of the other offences, the petitioner has already been acquitted which has been stated in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition and in paragraph no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State by referring paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit has not disputed the aforesaid fact that in other cases the acquittal order has also been passed in favour of the petitioner.

7. The foundation and the ground for cancellation