Ram Sagar Alias Ram Krishna vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lukcnow and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

By means of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was granted arms licence by the District Magistrate, Sitapur on 20.7.2003. Thereafter, an FIR relating to case crime No. 136 of 2005, u/s 307 IPC at Police Station Mishrikh District Sitapur was lodged against the Petitioner. After due trial, the Sessions Court, vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2009, acquitted the Petitioner on the aforesaid case crime but even then, the District Magistrate, Sitapur, vide order dated 17.1.2008, cancelled the fire arm licence. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. He submits that in the application condonation of delay, sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond time was mentioned but the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, without considering the cause in filing the appeal beyond time, dismissed the appeal by the order dated 10.2.2008. Hence the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that Petitioner''s fire arm licence has been cancelled merely on the ground of his false involvement in a criminal case, in which, he has been acquitted and as such, the cancellation of the arms licence of the Petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the sole reason for revoking the licence vide order dated 17.1.2008 is that criminal case was lodged against the Petitioner. He submits that the Petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid case by the trial Court and as such, the grounds which are mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act are not at all attracted in the case of the Petitioner and the Petitioner has not contravened any of the conditions as enumerated in the licence and as such the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal and legally not sustainable.

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the order cancelling the licence of the Petitioner was passed by the District Magistrate in public interest and it was duly communicated by the Officer Incharge (Arms) to the Petitioner. According to him, the competent authority has considered all aspect of the matters including the lodging the FIR under the major offences of the India Penal Code.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs. District Magistrate, Almora and others, this Court has held in clear words that a licence can not be refused/suspended/cancelled merely because there is an ordinary breach of law and order.

"Public peace" or "public safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred u/s 17(3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case. In Ram Murli Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur 1998 (16) LCD 905 this Court has held that licence can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit)

It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence u/s 17(3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and Ors., wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib v. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783.

In the instant case, the appeal of the Petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay in presenting the appeal. However, rejecting the appeal, the appellate authority has also touched the merits of the case and observed that the appeal has no ground. It is not disputed that the Petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid case crime number. It is altogether different that whether a person is acquitted on benefit of doubt or any other ground. The acquittal means that the charges levelled against him were not found proved by the competent Court. It may be observed that the Sessions Court has observed in its judgment that the prosecution witnesses have failed to establish the prosecution version beyond doubt. It has also been observed that from the testimony of the main prosecution witnesses, it is not proved that the accused Ram Sagar alias Krishna Kant and Pinku alias Anil have fired shots on the victim and caused him injuries. Thus, the impugned orders suffers from legal infirmities and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. Opposite party No. 2 is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.