Uma Shankar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Misra, J.—Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today. Let the same be taken on record.

Heard Sri S.N. Verma learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the affidavits filed by the parties.

The petitioner claims to be holder of arms licence and is aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal No. 22 of 2002/03 whereby his appeal has been dismissed.

According to Sri S.N. Verma the petitioner''s licence was initially suspended and then cancelled on the basis that two criminal cases pending against him. He states that the two criminal cases were Case Crime No. 56 of 2000 u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) S.C. S.T. Act and Case Crime No. 128 of 2002 u/s 302, 201 I.P.C. in the district. According to him Case Crime No. 128 of 2002 u/s 302, 201 I.P.C. has been dismissed on 30.6.2003 and in so far as Case Crime No. 56 of 2000 is concerned the same has also been dismissed and the petitioner has been given a clear acquittal by the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006. He therefore states that the very basis for passing the impugned order by the respondent No. 2 for cancellation of his arms licence does not exist and hence the same requires to be set aside.

Learned Standing Counsel while referring to his counter affidavit states that in Case Crime No. 128 of 2002 the court had dismissed the same because the witnesses had become hostile and it cannot be held to be a clear acquittal. He has referred to the supplementary affidavit and states that Case Crime No. 56 of 2000 was decided in ST No. 66 of 2001 and the petitioner was found guilty.

Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records a perusal of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2001 arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2000 indicates that although the petitioner has been acquitted u/s 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) S.C. S.T. Act however, he has been found guilty u/s 323 I.P.C. and has been sentenced with fine of Rs. 300. Consequently the submission that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the cases does not find support from the record.

In the first case arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2002 the Magistrate by the order dated 30.6.2003 has dismissed the same because witnesses became hostile and in the second case arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2000 the petitioner has been found guilty and imposed a fine of Rs. 300. Consequently even though at the time of decision of the appeal by the respondent No. 2 the criminal proceedings had not been decided but now they have been decided and admittedly the petitioner has been found guilty in one of them.

Consequently no interference is required in the impugned order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal No. 22 of 2002/03. The writ petition has no merit.

It is accordingly dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs.