Mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify cancellation of an arms license under the Arms Act; a substantial threat to public safety must be demonstrated for revocation.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 4.6.2016, passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.4/2011-2012 ( Amanullah v. State of U.P. ) under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as order dated 23.9.2011, passed by the respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Sitapur, contained as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the fire arms license of the petitioner bearing license No.4315 relating to Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was licensee of DBBL bearing license No.4315 relating to police station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. A show cause notice was issued on 29.9.2009 to the petitioner under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act regarding cancellation of arms license of the petitioner on the ground of involvement of his gun in criminal case mentioned in the show cause notice that why his license may not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent No.2, denying the allegations levelled against him with the submission that the petitioner has never misused his gun, but due to village party bandi and enmity of land dispute, his gun has been falsely been shown in the above criminal case.

4. The respondent No.2, without going into the merit of the case and ignoring the reply of the petitioner, cancelled the arms license of the petitioner vide order dated 23.9.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the order of cancellation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 under Section 18 of Arms Act, which has also been dismissed without considering the argument advanced by the petitioner, vide order dated 2.9.2011.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted arms license for DBBL gun and FIR in the case Crime No.8/2005 under Section 307, 504 and 506 IPC and Case Crime No.57A/2003 at Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh has been lodged. In the said FIR, neither the petitioner has been named, nor has been found involved in any manner and merely on lodging of the First Information Report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, asking him as to why his fire arms license be not cancelled as First Information Report has been registered against him. The petitioner denied the allegation vide reply dated 4.11.2009, submitting that the First Information Report has been registered against him due to political reason and enmity with the respondents, on the basis of false allegations.

He next submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in Case Crime No.8/2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2009 (Annexure no.5 to the writ petition) and has also been acquitted in Case Crme No.57A/2003 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2001 (Annexure No.2 to the affidavit filed in support of the recall application)

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was going to the sister's house alongwith his gun, which was kept by the police authority at police station and on the next date, when the petitioner went to take the gun, a First Information Report has been lodged. The District Magistrate, Pratapgrah, only recorded the fact that nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner