Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11531 of 2007 Petitioner :- Prakash Bhardwaj Respondent :- Commissioner, Agra Division And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Nikhil Chaturvedi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
08.06.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, District Firozabad
(Respondent no.2) whereby fire arm licence of the petitioner has been
cancelled as well as for quashing the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by
learned Commissioner Agra Division, Agra (Respondent No.1) whereby
appeal against the aforesaid order dated 08.06.2006 has also been
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was granted
a fire arm licence no.17 for Pistol No. 5635 by the competent authority
and a show cause notice dated 29.10.2003 was issued to the petitioner
by the District Magistrate, District Firozabad under Section 17 of the
Arms Act stating therein as to why the fire arm licence of the petitioner
be not cancelled on the ground that two criminal cases are pending
against him, being Case Crime No.243 of 2003 under Section 380
I.P.C., which was subsequently converted into under Section 147, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C., and Case Crime No. 183 of 2003, under Sections 395,
397 I.P.C.. It is further submitted that both the criminal cases have been
initiated against the petitioner on account of the fact, that a civil dispute
between the parties is pending, and therefore, the petitioner has been
falsely implicated.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner to the show cause
notice issued by the licencing authority but the licencing authority
passed the order dated 08.06.2006 cancelling the fire arm licence of the
petitioner against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
Commissioner Agra Division, Agra which appeal was also dismissed by
the Appellate Authority by an order dated 04.01.2007. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court
passed in the case of Harprasad Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2005(5) A.W.C. page 4939, wherein this Court while
examining the identical issue had held that the cancellation/revocation
of a fire arm licence on the ground of involvement and pendency of a
criminal case can not be sustained.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent has
made submission in support of the orders impugned, which are
enclosed in the petition. The question as to whether mere involvement
in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for
revocation of the licence under section 17 of the Arms Act has been
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheo
Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and others 1979 (16)
ACC 6(sum), wherein the Division Bench has relied upon the earlier
decisions of this Court in Mast Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad
1972 ALJ 573. In the aforesaid cases, it has been held that mere
involvement in a criminal case can not in any way effect the public
security and public interest. In view of the this proposition of law, the
order cancelling or revoking the arms licence of the petitioner on the
aforesaid ground of involvement and pendency of a criminal case is not
tenable.
In Full Bench Decision of this Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad
Sahu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984 (10) ALR 223 and Kailash
Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1985 (22) ACC 353
and in case of Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1994 JIC 72
(All); 1995 (Supp) ACC 235, it has been held that mere pendency of a
criminal case(s) is no ground for cancellation of arms licence. The effect
of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions was also considered in Sadri
Ram Vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others, 1998 (3) AWC
2102: 1998 (37) ACC 830.
This Court in the case of Harprasad (supra) held as hereunder:-
“Involvement and pendency of a case crime is no ground for
cancellation of fire-arm licence. It is settled law that after acquittal the
very basis for cancellation of the arm licence stands vitiated. In this
regard reference of the decision rendered in Lalji Vs. Commissioner,
Kanpur and another, 199 (4) AWC 2952, has been made.”
Thus in view of the admitted facts and the settled legal position that a
fire arm licence can not be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement
of licensee in a criminal case, the impugned orders can not be
sustained. In the present case, the petitioner has also been acquitted of
the charges which were made against him.
For the above reasons, the present writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 08.06.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, District Firozabad
(Respondent no.2) as well as the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by
learned Commissioner Agra Division, Agra (Respondent No.1) is hereby
quashed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s
claim of renewal of fire-arm licence in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 8.7.2010/S.Ali