Balram Singh vs State of U.P.and Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Inspite of repeated time granted by this Court respondents had not filed any counter affidavit. A last opportunity was also given to the learned Standing Counsel to file reply but failed to give any response. Hence, I proceed to decide the writ petition finally at admission stage with the consent of parties'' counsel.

Petitioner possesses arm licence 248 of 199 for SBBL gun. Licence for the arm was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Gonda in pursuance to Section 17 of the Arms Act vide order dated 13.3.2002. A copy of the order dated 13.3.2002 has been filed as Annexure1 to the writ petition. While canceling the licence, a finding has been recorded by the District Magistrate, Gonda that against the petitioner a Criminal Case No.72 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC was pending. On account of commission of said offence the petitioner was not found fit to retain the arm in question. It has been observed that the continuance of possession of arm by the petitioner is detrimental to public peace coupled with law and order.

Against the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda, petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was also dismissed on the same ground by the impugned order dated 27.7.2002. The Divisional Commissioner by impugned order dated 27.7.2002 had observed that on account of enmity between two rival persons the arms of the petitioners was not congenial to public peace. The order passed by the District Magistrate was reaffirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had filed supplementary affidavit dated 23.3.2006 and placed on record the judgment and order dated 27.9.2005 passed by the IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Gonda. By judgment and order dated 27.9.2005 the learned Additional Session Judge, Gonda had acquitted the petitioner in case Crime Number 72 of 2001, while trying the offence as under Session Trial No.236 of 2001. The averment contained in supplementary affidavit has not been rebutted by the opposite parties inspite of time granted by this Court from time to time.

In view of above, the sole ground, on which the petitioner''s arm licence was cancelled, does not survive. Since petitioner has been acquitted in the solitary criminal case relying upon which the impugned orders were passed, it shall not be justifiable to maintain the impugned orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention towards a judgment reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1643, Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner. Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another and submitted that mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that involvement in such criminal case shall be detrimental to public peace and tranquility shall not create a ground for cancellation of arm licence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance and material on record, since, petitioner has been already acquitted in the pending criminal case relying upon which the impugned orders have been passed, they are not sustainable under law.

The writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, writ in the nature of certiorari is issued, quashing the impugned. orders dated 13.3.2002 followed by order dated 27 7.2002 passed by opposite parties No. 3 and 2 respectively as contained in Annexure1 and 2 to the writ petition I with consequential benefits. Petitioner shall be entitled to retain the arms in question subject to completion of necessary formalities in accordance to rules and also in case the arm in question is not wanted in other case or proceeding.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

(Petition allowed)