Raghubir Singh vs Commissioner, Jhansi and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is licensee of fire-arms, has challenged the order passed by the licensing authority dated 13th August, 1997 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the Petitioner''s fire-arms'' licences of Rifle No. 12393 under Licence No. 6213/III-B and Revolver No. 1311 under Licence No. A/6778 were cancelled. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.12.1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) by the appellate authority. The sole ground for cancellation of the fire arms'' licences of the Petitioner, was involvement of the Petitioner in Case Crime No. 33 of 1997 under different sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 307/309 read with Sections 34 and 395, I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit wherein he has annexed the copy of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 145 of 2000 dated 15th July 2002, in which the Petitioner was also an accused. A perusal of the judgment demonstrates that all the accused persons, including the Petitioner, were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No. 2), Hamirpur in the said sessions trial.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that according to the law laid down by this Court including a recent decision in Iftikhar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , wherein this Court relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra v. District Magistrate, Basti and Ors. 1978 AWC 122 and Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad 1972 ALJ 573, has held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire-arm on this ground is to be set aside. In the present case also, the facts are almost similar. Perusal of the order dated 13.8.1997 and the order of the appellate authority dated 17.12.1997 (Annexures-5 and 7 to the writ petition) will demonstrate that on the basis of the material, i.e., first information report of the Case Crime No. 33 of 1997, licences have been cancelled exercising power u/s 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.

For the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment referred to above, I see no reason to deviate from the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid case, particularly, in the circumstance when the Petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid sessions trial by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No. 2), Hamirpur, judgment whereof is on record as Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. This petition deserves to be allowed.

This petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the licensing authority dated 13.8.1997 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and that of the appellate authority dated 17.12.1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) are quashed. The Petitioner is entitled for restoration of his fire-arms'' licences. If the fire-arms have been deposited, the same may be returned to the Petitioner forthwith.