Pramod Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 28.01.2005 passed by respondent no. 2, Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut as well as the order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut respondent no.3, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition.

By order dated 26.03.2004 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition), the District Magistrate, Meerut respondent no.3, cancelled the petitioner''s fire arm licence on the ground of his involvement in Criminal Case No. 656 of 1997, under Sections 147, 148 and 307 I.P.C., Criminal Case No. 172 of 1995 under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Section 135 "2" Peoples Regulation Act.

Aggrieved from the order dated 26.03.2004 the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut which was registered as Appeal No. 14 of 200304 and dismissed by him by his order dated 28.01.2005

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law is settled that a fire arm licence can not be cancelled merely on the ground of pendency of criminal trial or criminal case against the licensee.

He further submitted that for the offence with which the petitioner was charged in case Crime Nos. 656 of 1997, the petitioner was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in Criminal Case No. 660 of 1997 and acquitted by him by his judgement dated 18.19.2003, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure no. R.A.1 to the rejoinder affidavit, and with the petitioner''s acquittal in a criminal case the very basis for the cancellation of the petitioner''s fire arm licence had become nonexistent.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents made his submissions in support of the impugned orders but he does dispute the factum of acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case.

The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate Basti and others, 1979 (16)ACC 6 (sum), wherein the Division Bench relied upon an earlier decision in Mast Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573. In both the aforesaid cases it has been held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way effect the public security or public interest. In view of this proposition of law the order cancelling or revoking the licence of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of involvement and pendency of a criminal case is not tenable.

In Full Bench Decision of this Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984(10) ALR 223 and Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1985 (22) ACC 353 and in the case of Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1994 JIC 72 (All); 1995 (Supp) ACC 235, it has been held that mere pendency of a criminal case (s) is no ground for cancellation of arms licence. The effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions was also considered in Sadri Ram Vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others, 1998 (3) AWC 2102: 1998 (37) ACC 830.

This court in the case of Harprasad (supra) held as hereunder:

" involvement and pendency of a case crime is no ground for cancellation of firearm licence. It is settled law that after acquittal the very basis for cancellation of the arm licence stands vitiated. In this regard reference of the decision rendered in Lalji Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and another, 1999 (4) AWC 2952, has been made."

Thus in view of the admitted facts and the settled legal position that a fire arm licence can not be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement of licensee in a criminal case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Even otherwise the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case in which he was involved and hence there is no justification for the continuance of the cancellation of the petitioner''s fire arm licence.

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the respondent no. 3 and order dated 28.01.2005 passed by respondent no. 2 ( Annexure No. 2 and 1 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed.

The respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the petitioner''s claim for renewal of his fire arm licence in accordance with law.