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

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner''s father was granted a licence for possessing 0.12 bore Double Barrel Gun. It was transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 1977. It is alleged that one Charan Singh son of Ganga Shyam who was inimical towards the petitioner, filed a false case against him under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. The petitioner preferred an application before respondent No. 1 stating therein that he has been falsely implicated in the said criminal case. No evidence was led to prove the charges and the proceedings against him were dropped for want of evidence and the petitioner was discharged.

It is submitted that except the aforesaid criminal proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. not a single First Information Report has ever been lodged against the petitioner but the licence has been cancelled by respondent No. 1 without application of mind in a mechanical manner. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard in the matter or to show cause notice before his gun licence was suspended but thereafter, was directed to show cause as to why his gun licence be not cancelled. The District Magistrate, Mathura appointed the SubDivisional Magistrate, Chhata as Enquiry Officer, who for a report from Sub Inspector of Police Station Chhata, District Mathura. Placing reliance on the said report of SubInspector P.S. Chhata he 134 1984 recommended that the licence of the petitioner be cancelled. In pursuance of the recommendation of the SubDivisional Magistrate, the Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 294 83 cancelling the of the licence petitioner.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Agra, respondent No. 2, who it is alleged without going into the merits of the case and without considering the record dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.4.1985. The order passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura dated 29485 and the order dated 16485 of the respondent No. 2 in appeal are impugned in the present writ petition.

The aforesaid orders have been assailed on the ground that the gun licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of the report submitted by the SubInspector. It is submitted that the SubDivisional Magistrate, who was the Enquiry Officer, instead of conducting fair and impartial enquiry called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Mathura who in turn directed SubInspector of Police Station Chhata to submit his report. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of police report without there being enquiry by the SubDivisional Magistrate himself. The order is also assailed on the ground that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to appreciate that not a single First Information Report was ever lodged against the petitioner except the proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. in which he was falsely implicated and acquitted and has no criminal antecedents.

It is settled law that the licence cannot be cancelled or revoked on allegation of mere involvement of the licence holder in a criminal case. The Writ petition is pending since 1985. More than 18 years have passed since the lodging of the criminal case under Sections 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in which he has been acquitted. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner. The licence of the petitioner was cancelled only on the ground of pendency of the criminal case alleging his involvement, without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. This was in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 16483 and 29485 are quashed. The petitioner may file a fresh application before the appropriate authority for consideration of renewal of his licence in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. No order as to cost.