Full Judgment
1. Heard Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Panjwani, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 20.12.2002(Annexure no. 4) and 04.03.2006(Annexure no.5) passed by the District Magistrate,Gonda and Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda respectively.
3. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is a holder of Gun Licence No. 348 NP Bore Rifle No. AB-01/4262. In respect to the same, a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner dated 20.09.2002, thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause-notice and after considering the same, the Licencing Authority vide order dated 20.12.2002(Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) cancelled the petitioner's Arms licence. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, rejected vide order dated 04.03.2006, hence the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders under challenge in the present case are arbitrary in nature as the orders does not satisfy the grounds as mentioned under Section 17 of the Arms Act on the basis of which arms licence granted to the petitioner is cancelled.
5. He further submits that the sole reason on the basis of which licence of the petitioner has been cancelled is an FIR which was lodged against him on 04.09.2002. In the said FIR, the petitioner was not named, even in the incident in question in which FIR was lodged and a case No. 146 of 2002(State v. Raghvendra Mishra) was registered in which Police filed a final report .
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order passed by the concerned authorities are arbitrary in nature and liable to be set aside.
7. Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no finding in the impugned orders about the imminent danger to public peace and safety due to the involvement of the petitioner in alleged criminal cases, so the impugned order of cancellation passed by the respondent no. 3 is per se illegal and in contravention to the provisions as provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments.
1.Fuzail Ahmad v. Commissioner Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad and others [2001(19) LCD 1]
2.Ram Murti Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD 905]
3.Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division Gonda and another [2004(22) LCD 1643]
4.Mohd. Haroon v. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar [2003(21) LCD 548]
5.Hari Kant @ Raja v. State of U.P. and others [2002(1) JIC 714(All)]
6.Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi & others [2002(2)JIC 987(All)]
7.Ram Karpal Singh v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and others [2006(24) LCD 114]
8.Satish Singh v. District Magistrate, Sultanpur [2010(68) ACC 94].
9. Sri Suresh Panjwani, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that in the present case after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled taking into consideration the report submitted against him by police concerned and thereafter the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority. However, it is undisputed fact that in the incident an FIR was lodged on 04.09.2002 in which petitioner's name does not find place and final report has been filed by the concerned police.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
11. Needless to mention here that Section 17 of the Arms Act provides the grounds by virtue of which a licence granted to a person can be suspended or revoked.
12. Section 17 of the Arms Act has come under judicial scrutiny before this Court in the case of Nagroom Ram v. State of U.P. and others 2000 A.A.R. 243 (H.C.), after relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of U.P. and others, 1984 AWC 145. Thereafter, this Court after in the case of Fakir Chand v. Commissioner, Meerut Mandal, Meerut 2002 (1) ACC 518, held as under:-
"Para 7:- The licensing authority and the appellate authority simply referred to the report of the station officer of the police station, which was not proved by him. The same was thus legally not admissible in evidence. It is not disputed that the station officer, who submitted the report, was not present personally at the place of occurrence, therefore, he could not have any personal knowledge of the incident and the case of the prosecution has not been supported by the prosecution witnesses in the criminal. The said case, therefore, resulted in clear acquittal of the accused persons. The judgment and order passed by the criminal Court dated 6.9.1997 has become final which is binding upon the parties. Thus at present there are contradictory and conflicting findings recorded by the authorities/courts below about the same incident, therefore the submission, made by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. In view of these facts, validity of the impugned orders cannot be sustained."
13. The said view was further reiterated by this Court in the Case of Ram Kripal Singh v. Commissioner, Devi Patan, Gonda and others 2006 (24) LCD 114.
14. In the case of Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another, 2004 (22) LCD 1643 and Balram Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2006 (24) LCD 1359, this Court has held that mere involvement in the criminal case without any finding that the involvement in such criminal cases shall be detrimental to public peace and tranquility shall not create a ground for cancellation of arms licence.
15. In the case of Sahab Singh v. Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra and others 2006 (24) LCD 374, this Court after placing reliance on the case of Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. 2005 (51) Allahabad Criminal Cases 396 and Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P. 2004 (2) JIC 239 as well as on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sardari Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh, 1988 ALL CJ 1449, (in para 4) held as under:-
"Considering the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in all other cases mentioned in the show cause notice except for the show cause notice except for the Case Crime No. 124 of 2002, in which the trial is going on and keeping in view the fact that merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the licence cannot be canceled nor the licence can be placed under suspension pending enquiry, in my view, the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be quashed."
16. In view of the above said facts as in the present case, that the FIR which was the sole basis of the cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner, even the petitioner was not named therein and in the said matter, police authority had filed final report, so there is no justification or reason on the part of the Licencing Authority to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner and the action on the part of the respondent no. 2 thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner are unreasonable and arbitrary in nature, and also in violation of the principles of natural justice.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 20.12.2002(Annexure no. 4) and 04.03.2006(Annexure no.5) passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda and Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda respectively are set aside, further the Licencing Authority/Respondent no. 3 is directed to grant/renew the arms licence of the petitioner for Gun Licence No. 348 NP Bore Rifle No. AB-01/4262 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.