Ram Karpal Singh vs Commissioner, Devi Paten Mandal, Gonda and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel.

The present writ petition has been filed against the cancellation of license of arms in a proceeding issued under Section 17 of the Arms Act.

The fact of the case is that the petitioner was involved in certain criminal cases. The District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 9.8.1999 had arrived to the conclusion that the cancellation of petitioner''s arm is necessary to maintain public peace and tranquility. With intention to safeguard and public peace and security the District Magistrate had cancelled the arm. There is no finding recorded by the District Magistrate that on account of use of fire arm, there was eminent danger to public peace or law and order. Only on the presumption, the license has been cancelled.

By the impugned order dated 9.8.1999, the District Magistrate had cancelled the fire arm of the petitioner. The impugned order of the District Magistrate does not show that the petitioner is a habitual offender or he is an antisocial element or he is in habit to create terror in the vicinity.

An appeal was preferred under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner of the Division concerned. By the impugned order dated 17.7.2001, the revisional Court without going into the merit of the case in detail in a mechanical manner dismissed the appeal. During the pendency of proceedings before the authorities below, the trial of the aforementioned criminal cases were concluded and the petitioner was acquitted. The finding of the appellate authority was also acquittal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the two judgments of this Court reported in 2002 ACC, Habib v. State of U.P.

Para 3 and 4 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

�Para 3: 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 license under Arms Act, has been deal with by a Division Bench in this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot be in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order canceling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned order also suffers from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed.

Para 4: There is yet another reason that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal cases and at present here is neither any case pending nor any conviction has been attributed to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure SA1 and II to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter the petitioner is entitled to have the fire arm license. It is submitted by petitioner''s counsel that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges.�

One another judgment which has been relied upon reported in 2002(1) ACC 518, Fakir Chand v. Commr. Meerut Mandal, Meerut. Para 7 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

�Para 7: The licensing authority and the appellate authority simply referred to the report of the station officer of the police station, which was not proved by him. The same was thus legally not admissible in evidence. It is not disputed that the station officer, who submitted the report, was not present personally at the place of occurrence, therefore, he could not have any personal knowledge of the incident and the case of the prosecution has not been supported by the prosecution witnesses in the criminal. The said case, therefore, resulted in clear acquittal of the accused persons. The judgment and order passed by the criminal Court dated 6.9.1997 has become final which is binding upon the parties. Thus at present there are contradictory and conflicting findings recorded by the authorities/Courts below about the same incident, therefore the submission, made by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. In view of these facts, validity of the impugned orders cannot be sustained.�

In view of the aforementioned case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as facts and the circumstances of the present case and the evidence on record, it appears that the ground for cancellation of arms licence does not satisfy the conditions provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act. In the absence of any finding relating to breach of public peace or tranquility on account of continuance of arms licence in petitioners'' possession the impugned order not sustain under law.

The writ petition is allowed. Writ of certiorari is issued. The impugned orders dated 17.7.2001, 9.8.1999 and 19.1.2001 contained in Annexures No.1, 6 and 7 to the writ petition are quashed with all consequential benefits. Petitioner shall be entitled to retain the arm in question unless prohibited by some other order or direction passed by competent authority, in accordance to law.

(Petition allowed)