Ashok Singh vs State of U.P.& Ors.

D.P. Singh, J.—This petition after its transfer has been nominated by Hon''ble The Chief Justice to me. This is how the petition has been placed before this Court.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Inspite of a stop order, no counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondents. Thus, the Court is left with no other option but to decide this petition on the averments and documents on record.

The petitioner holds a gun licence No. 60129 issued in 1992 which covers a single barrel gun. A showcause notice dated 39 2001 was issued against the petitioner for cancellation of his firearm licence and simultaneously directing the petitioner to deposit his gun. After deposit of the gun, he preferred Writ Petition No. 4058 of 2002, which has been allowed by an order dated 2912002 quashing that part of the order by which the petitioner was directed to deposit his gun. However, the petitioner was asked to file his reply to the showcause. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply and by the impugned order dated 412002 his licence was cancelled and so also the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 3132005.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that his gun licence has been cancelled in a arbitrary manner simply on the basis of pendency of a case under Section 107/116 Cr. P.C. No doubt this Court has held in the case of Ghanshyam Singh v. Commissioner, Agra Division, 2003 (2) JIC 664 (All) and Babu Khan v. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, 1999(2) JIC 142 (All) : 1999 U.P. Cr. R. 534, that mere involvement under Section 107/116 Cr. P.C. or after the dropping of such proceedings, firearm licence cannot be cancelled, but the cancellation is also based on ground of being involved in case crime No. 177 of 1999 under Section 302 I.P.C. The specific case of the petitioner before the authorities below and this Court has been that he is not connected with the aforesaid case. A copy of the F.I.R. and chargesheet has also been annexed, which shows that neither he has been named nor there are any allegations against him. It is also asserted that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case. However, learned Standing Counsel has contended that there was apprehension in the minds of the authorities that the petitioner could misuse his firearm. Apprehension has to be based on facts. It is not denied that the petitioner holds his firearms licence since 1992 and there is nothing on record to show that he was involved in any criminal case except the proceedings under Section 107/116 of the Criminal Procedure Code which had already been dropped. None of the authorities have applied its mind to the defence raised by the petitioner and as such the orders cannot be sustained.

For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 412002 and 3132005 are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to forthwith return the firearm to the petitioner. No order as to costs.

D.P. Singh, J.

This petition after its transfer has been nominated by Hon''ble The Chief Justice to me. This is how the petition has been placed before this Court.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Inspite of a stop order, no counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondents. Thus, the Court is left with no other option but to decide this petition on the averments and documents on record.

The petitioner holds a gun licence No. 60129 issued in 1992 which covers a single barrel gun. A showcause notice dated 39 2001 was issued against the petitioner for cancellation of his firearm licence and simultaneously directing the petitioner to deposit his gun. After deposit of the gun, he preferred Writ Petition No. 4058 of 2002, which has been allowed by an order dated 2912002 quashing that part of the order by which the petitioner was directed to deposit his gun. However, the petitioner was asked to file his reply to the showcause. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply and by the impugned order dated 412002 his licence was cancelled and so also the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 3132005.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that his gun licence has been cancelled in a arbitrary manner simply on the basis of pendency of a case under Section 107/116 Cr. P.C. No doubt this Court has held in the case of Ghanshyam Singh v. Commissioner, Agra Division, 2003 (2) JIC 664 (All) and Babu Khan v. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, 1999(2) JIC 142 (All) : 1999 U.P. Cr. R. 534, that mere involvement under Section 107/116 Cr. P.C. or after the dropping of such proceedings, firearm licence cannot be cancelled, but the cancellation is also based on ground of being involved in case crime No. 177 of 1999 under Section 302 I.P.C. The specific case of the petitioner before the authorities below and this Court has been that he is not connected with the aforesaid case. A copy of the F.I.R. and chargesheet has also been annexed, which shows that neither he has been named nor there are any allegations against him. It is also asserted that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case. However, learned Standing Counsel has contended that there was apprehension in the minds of the authorities that the petitioner could misuse his firearm. Apprehension has to be based on facts. It is not denied that the petitioner holds his firearms licence since 1992 and there is nothing on record to show that he was involved in any criminal case except the proceedings under Section 107/116 of the Criminal Procedure Code which had already been dropped. None of the authorities have applied its mind to the defence raised by the petitioner and as such the orders cannot be sustained.

For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 412002 and 3132005 are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to forthwith return the firearm to the petitioner. No order as to costs.