Allahabad High Court
Salim Ahmad vs The Commissioner, Moradabad & ... on 8 December, 2011
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved on 21.11.2011
Delivered on 08.12.2011
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46679 of 2009
Petitioner :- Salim Ahmad
Respondent :- The Commissioner, Moradabad & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Pradeep Saxena
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 16th February, 2007 passed by District Magistrate, Rampur cancelling firearm licence of the petitioner in purported exercise of power under Section 17 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1959") and the appellate order dated 22nd April, 2009 whereby Commissioner has rejected petitioner's appeal and affirmed the cancellation order.
2. It is alleged that the cancellation is founded on the ground that criminal case under Section 25 of Act 1959 has been registered against the petitioner. According to the first information report, a 12 bore Tamancha along with two live cartridges of the same bore were recovered from his possession on 17th June, 2006 by two constables. The aforesaid weapon and cartridges, the petitioner possessed without any authority, and hence a criminal case No.330 of 2006 under Section 25 of Act 1959 was registered against him.
3. Sri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel for petitioner contended that he has been implicated in the said criminal case falsely, trial has not concluded for the last more than 5 years as a result whereof petitioner is being harassed and victimized for no fault on his part, and, in the meantime respondents authorities have also cancelled his firearm licence which was granted to him for his personal safety and security, exposing the petitioner to the risk to his person and life.
4. During the course of argument, Sri Saxena also stated that throughout the State a very large number of persons are being harassed in false cases lodged by the police authorities implicating poor citizens by showing recovery of illicit non prohibited bore weapon from their possession and trial of such matters is being delayed due to non-appearance of witnesses. In this way not only innocent people in the State are suffering but a very large number of criminal cases are also pending in subordinate courts involving petty and false cases which in effect constitute mostly frivolous cases. Their pendency on account of dilatory tactics/negligence/miss on the part of prosecution agency is burdening the Courts though if prosecution would have cared to conclude and complete proceedings in a reasonable manner, a substantial chunk of criminal matters under Section 25 of Act 1959 could have concluded and would have lighten the weight of arrears in subordinate courts.
5. The respondents were directed to file counter affidavit as long back as on 3.9.2009 but they did not respond. In the circumstances, this Court passed a stern order on 1.11.2011. The respondents were also directed, as a matter of fact, to inform the Court about number of cases pending in District Judgeship Rampur under Section 25 of Act 1959 which are older by more than two years and the reasons for delay therein.
6. Pursuant thereto a counter affidavit sworn by Sri Rajesh Kumar, Tehsildar, Tehsil Shahbad, District Rampur has been filed wherein he has admitted pendency of Trial in criminal case No.330 of 2006. It is said that due to non turning of witnesses, Trial has not concluded. It is said that on 14th January, 2011 Non bailable Warrants were issued and for appearance of prosecution witnesses the next date fixed is 24.01.2012.
7. Besides above, it is also informed that as per information given by Senior Prosecution Officer, Rampur 1803 cases older by two years under Section 25 Act 1959 are pending in various trial Courts in District Judgeship Rampur and they are mostly pending due to non completion of evidence etc. So far as reason for cancellation of petitioner's firearm is concerned, it is not disputed that the same has been cancelled founded on the fact that petitioner was found carrying illicit weapon and cartridge. The allegation of false implication of petitioner is denied.
8. Sri Pradeep Saxena contended that mere registration of criminal case would not justify cancellation of firearm and placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No.53012 of 2006 (Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 26.04.2010 and Har Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2005(5) AWC 4939.
9. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
10. Before coming to the merits of this case, this Court find it appropriate to say something about huge pendency of the cases under Section 25 of Act 1959 in subordinate courts in the State. District Rampur, if taken as sample case, and pendency of above number of cases involving Section 25 of Act 1959 is indicative, the total figure in the State would cross figure of 1.25 lacs and odd. It is evident that this huge number of cases are mostly pending due to lack of interest shown by prosecution. Such huge pendency put unnecessary burden on subordinate Courts and consume enough time in simply adjourning and fixing dates. In my view, if some procedure is evolved to finish of these matters, it would help subordinate Courts in reduction of petty matters and this time may be utilized for adjudication of other matters of substance, importance and more serious in nature.
11. I, therefore, find it expedient to direct Registrar General to collect information of pending cases only under Section 25 of Act 1959 from all subordinate Courts and place these figures along with a proposed mechanism in consultation of Legal Remembrancer and Principal Secretary, Home, if necessary, before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for His Lordship's consideration and further necessary action in the matter.
12. Coming to the present case, it is difficult to read the two orders impugned in the writ petition as if they are simply founded on mere registration of criminal case against the petitioner. The authorities below have proceeded to consider conduct and criminal aptitude of petitioner borne out from the facts which constitute criminal case against the petitioner relevant in the context of public peace and tranquillity, and thereafter they have passed the orders impugned in the writ petition cancelling firearm licence of petitioner holding that continuance thereof is not in public interest.
13. It is no doubt true that mere registration of a criminal case cannot and should not be a ground to cancel firearm licence but where something more has been considered by the authorities concerned, the said exposition of law would have no application.
14. The writ petition in the result lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations and direction made above. The Registrar General shall take appropriate steps in furtherance of the direction given above forthwith.
Order Date:-08.12.2011
KA
