Judgment:
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.1.2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur in Cr. Misc. No. 26 of 1993 by virtue of which the arms licence, which is a double barrel gun, stands cancelled for the reasons indicated therein. An appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner, which is Arms Appeal No. 08 of 2000, was also dismissed by order dated 30.9.2008. Both the orders are impugned in the present writ application as anncxures 6 and 7 respectively.
2. The background to the present action of the respondent authorities is that an FIR was lodged on 28/29.4.1993 what is known as Udwant Nagar P.S. Case No. 76 of 1993.As per the FIR the petitioner and his other family members and criminal elements entered the house of the informant, fired indiscriminately, injured a few persons and killed two male and two female members in cold blood. The reason is supposed to be a land dispute between the parties for which civil litigations have been going on for many a years and probably the informant's side has succeeded even at the level of High Court.
3. The accused persons were chargesheeted after due investigation and a trial was held. The case is Sessions Trial No. 324 of 1993. By virtue of the order dated 20th September, 1995 in a 3 1/2 page judgment the sessions court acquits all the accused persons holding that the prime accused has become hostile and the matter has been compromised between the parties. After acquittal of the petitioner and other accused persons, the authority however keeping the background to the dispute and conduct of the petitioner in mind, decided to cancel the arms licence and seize the same. Petitioner was directed to surrender the arms and also a show cause was issued as to why cancellation be not effected.
4. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur registered a case namely, Cr. Misc. No. 26 of 1993 under the Arms Act. Petitioner was given opportunity by the District Magistrate. After considering the evidence, material, as well as the judgment of the Sessions Judge, he was not impressed by the fact of acquittal of the petitioner of a criminal charge by the Sessions Judge. The learned District Magistrate went into the evidence which included the investigation which was made after such a serious crime, the supervision which was done by Dy. S.P. at the relevant time and the role of the petitioner who used the gun for committing murder of four innocent persons. This, according to the District Magistrate, was good enough ground to deny to the petitioner his right to possess arms, since it was used to oppress and not for self defence. The licence therefore stood cancelled. The order in question came to be challenged in appeal. Learned Divisional Commissioner after examining the matter concurred with the conclusions of the District Magistrate and held that since reasoning and the materials have been duly discussed in the speaking order of the District Magistrate, the order does not require any interference in appeal. It is in this background that the petitioner now challenges annexures 6 and 7. the orders in question.
5. The primary submission which has been made on behalf of the petitioner is that after the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges of having committed murder or having violated the provisions of the Arms Act, there is no material to hold him guilty and cancel his licence.
6. The other contention is that Section 27 of the Arms Act has no application to the present case because the provisions of the Act coupled with the findings do not establish the breach of the said section. It is also contended that at no point of time the gun in question was put to forensic examination to establish that the gun was used for the offence or for any other offence. In fact, an enquiry was held and no allegation was made against the petitioner by the villagers otherwise.
7. Learned Counsel representing the State, however, submits without commenting upon the decision of the learned Sessions Judge on the issue that an acquittal on the ground of a compromise or the prime witness turning hostile may be good enough for the petitioner not being sent to jail or gallows, but the enquiry before the District Magistrate was not whether he has committed the murder in question but whether the arms licence issued to him and the arms procured through the same, has been misused or used in such a manner which has taken away the lives of four innocent persons.
8. The other contention is that a thorough investigation has been held, the matter has been supervised by the senior authority, chargesheet came to be filed and there was evidence with regard to misuse of the gun of the petitioner in the said crime but merely because the final conviction has not been recorded against the petitioner, it does not mean that the factum of crime vanishes, since after all there are four persons dead, which remains unexplained.
9. If the District Magistrate, therefore. has come to a considered opinion that petitioner is not a responsible person who can be allowed to possess a gun looking at the past incident of violence, he has committed no wrong in denying the right of the petitioner to possess an arm, based on a licence which was issued in the year 1985. It is also urged that so far as Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, merely because Section has been levelled, it does not mean that other part of the Order 1 becomes redundant or illegal.
10. The Court has gone through the records, the FIR and the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur. Since the judgment in question is not a subject matter of consideration of this Court in the present proceeding, therefore, the Court would restrain itself from making any comments on the quality of the same but the Court can surely record that in a crime where four persons have been shot dead, case has been dealt with in such a callous and casual manner merely because parties decided to settle the matter amongst themselves for the reasons best known to them. But this does not take away the gaze of this Court from the primal fact that petitioner cannot be entrusted in this background with arms which has been provided to him to protect himself and not to use it as a weapon of offence or to overawe or for subjugation of his adversaries.
11. In the totality the reasons which have been recorded by the District Magistrate as well as by the Divisional Commissioner are well founded. It is a fit case in which no interference is required, lest it may embolden the petitioner with further adventurism of the kind which happened way back in the year 1993.
12. The writ application is dismissed.