Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioner applied for fire arm licence. He was granted licence No. 641/P-II SBBL on 27.3.1995 for 12 bore gun permitting him six month’s time for purchase of the gun.
3. It appears that an incident took place on 3.5.1995 in the village of the petitioner, in which a named FIR was lodged on 3.5.1995 against him. A perusal of the 1TR annexure No. 1 to the writ petition shows that the Anil Singh the petitioner came on his moter-cycle alongwith Gajraj Singh on the rider seat, who was carrying a double barrel gun. ‘The petitioner stopped his moter-cycle near the Tea stall where Gajraj Singh shot down Sri Ram Paras Yadav in day light in full view of some villagers and relatives of the deceased. The petitioner alognwith Gajraj Singh ran away from the spot on the motorcycle driven by the petitioner.
4. Criminal case No. 39/95 was lodged against the petitioner and Sri Gajraj Singh under Section 302 IPC.
5. A show cause notice was issued to him in exercise of power under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act as to why his gun licence aforesaid be not cancelled for non supply of the information regarding the details of gun to the police station. The arms licence was suspended though it is alleged that the petitioner had replied the show cause notice interalia that a complete details had already been given by the petitioner to the police station concerned and that he had never misused his lire arm nor violated any terms of the licence. As regards the criminal case it was alleged that he had falsely been implicated and it has no concerned with the fire arm was purchased by him on 14.7.1995 whereas the incident is said to have been on 3.5.1995 ; that purchase of fire arm was itself endorsed on the licence on 2.7.1995 hence the notice was based on misconceived facts as such the proceedings were liable to be dropped that orders passed by the District Magistrate is beyond ambit of Section 17 of the Arms Act as there was no question of misuse of the gun which had not been purchased on the date of the aforesaid incident on 3.5.1995. The authority below having failed to apply them mind to the facts and circumstances of the case have passed he impugned orders which are liable to he set aside.
6. His gun licence however was cancelled by the impugned order dated 13.12.1996 passed by the District Magistrate on the ground that criminal case against the petitioner is pending. Simultaneously order of seizure of the lire arm was also passed. Aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal No. 5/96 before Commissioner Varanasi Division Varanasi which too was rejected by order dated 10.2.2003. In the aforesaid backdrop this writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned orders.
7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in the said case and he had no role, which has been assigned to him in the said incident of shooting of Ram Daras Yadav (since deceased) by Sri Gajraj Singh the accused.
8. It is urged that the petitioner arm licence was cancelled mainly on the ground that after purchase of arm, details had not been given to the police station while a bare perusal of the licence book itself, it is crystal clear that the petitioner purchased arm on 14.7.1995 and the entry of the same was made on the licence book on 27.7.1995 under the signature of District Magistrate opposite party No. 2 and an information to the said respect was given to the police station concerned. As such the reason assigned for cancellation of the arm licence of the petitioner is based on imagination and contrary to the existing facts and as per the entry in the licence book of the petitioner.
9. It is also stated that Criminal Case No. 39 of 1995 is being investigated by CBCID and is still pending. I am of the opinion that petitioner cannot be said to have been falsely implicated in case crime No. 39 of 1995. After hearing of learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it appeals that the shooting had taken place in day light in the village and in presence of the eye witness. Obviously the petitioner could not fire upon the deceased as he was driving the motor-cycle and was not carrying fire arm. His defence that he had no knowledge that Gajraj Sing was going to fire upon Ram Daras Yadav is not believable in this case. In my opinion the ingredient of Section 34 IPC would apply as the petitioner after the incident played a major rule in carrying Sri Gajraj Singh on his motorcycle by assigning him in this manner from fleeing away from the spot after he shot Sri ram Daras Yadav.
10. It is true that the incident took place on 3.5.1995 and petitioner has purchased arm licence on 14.7.1999 hence no case for using gun by the petitioner on 3.5.1995 would be there yet note is taken of the fact that even if without any fire arm the petitioner would involve himself in a crime Under Section 302 IPC with Gajraj Singh in the aforesaid incident in day light in presence of witnesses and assault him to flee from the site of crime then certainly there can be no doubt that if he is permitted to keep fire arm it would be dangerous for the society at large.
11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that merely because some criminal case is pending against the petitioner may not be a ground for cancellation of the licence as the question of false implication of the petitioner in the crime cannot be ruled out and the petitioner may also be evicted in the said case No. 39/95 is also not convincing.
12. It is true that in the criminal case pending against the petitioner the gun license might not be cancelled only in this ground however in my opinion the direction in which society is moving a second look is required to closely taken by the courts of the crimes which are galloping and increasing in Geomedical progression. Therefore a line of distinction in treatment of criminal cases for petty crimes and for heinous crime like as in the present case is to be drawn. Since more and more such incident are happening, the law has to be moulded according to the needs of the time.
13. I am therefore of the considered opinion that where the criminal cases pending against the accused are of petty nature and no fruitful purpose may be served by getting the fire arm deposited in Police Station or with arms dealer. The fire arm licence may not be cancelled but where repeated petty crimes are committed by the accused showing his incorrigible nature or crime of heinous and major offences are committed by licence holder with or without his fire arm then in those cases cancellation of arm licence would be only befitting in the circumstances. The authority in the later set of cases is then required to give detailed reason for arriving at satisfaction that it is necessary to cancel the fire arm license.
14. Hence, for the reason that investigation of major crime/offence under Section 302 IPC is pending against the petitioner by the CBCID, I am not incline to interferer in the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
15. It is however clarified that any observation made by this Court in respect of the crime on the FIR resulting in criminal case No. 39/95, is only for the purpose of deciding of this case and shall not be effected proceedings before the CBCID or the courts below and it is expected that they shall proceed in accordance with law with independent mind.
16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.