Guru Charan vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The firearms licence of the Petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Etah by the order dated 17th February, 2001 for the reason that three criminal case were pending against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra by which the appeal filed by the Petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that in Case Crime No. 114 of 1997, though the Petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Court but he was acquitted by the High Court by the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2000. In the other two criminal cases namely Case Crime No. 60 of 1968 and Case Crime No. 10 of 1994 he was acquitted on 11th August, 2009 and 22nd July, 2000 respectively. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that though the Commissioner noted the fact that the Petitioner had been acquitted in Case Crime No. 114 of 1997 by the High Court but he has observed that the impugned order cannot be set aside for this reason as the Petitioner was acquitted by the High Court on technical ground. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, is that since the Petitioner has been acquitted in all the criminal cases, the authorities should reconsider the matter since the firearm licence was cancelled only for the reason that the Petitioner was involved in three criminal cases.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has pointed out that the appeal was allowed by the High Court only on a technical ground and, therefore, this acquittal cannot be made a ground by the Petitioner for setting aside the cancellation order.

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The reason assigned by the District Magistrate for cancelling the firearm licence of the Petitioner was his involvement in three criminal cases. The Petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid three criminal cases. The Commissioner except for observing that the Petitioner had been acquitted on a technical ground, has not given reasons for not accepting the submissions of the Petitioner. The matter, therefore, needs to be examined afresh. This may be done by the District Magistrate first. The Petitioner may move an application before the District Magistrate, Etah along with the certified copies of the three orders passed by the criminal Court as well as the order passed in this petition and the Court has no reason to doubt that in case such an application is filed, the District Magistrate shall examine the same and pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously. The orders impugned in the present petition shall abide by the order to be passed by the District Magistrate.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.