Allahabad High Court
Vipin @ Vipendra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 July, 2011
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38462 of 2011
Petitioner :- Vipin @ Vipendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Naveen Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondents.
2.Writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.4.2011 passed by respondent no. 2 rejecting appeal of petitioner confirming the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by Collector cancelling firearm licence of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order of cancellation was initially passed on account of his involvement in a criminal case no. 176 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 504 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act wherein petitioner was ultimately acquitted by Trial Court and, therefore, impugned order of cancellation is wholly illegal and shows non application of mind.
3.However, I do not find it a fit case for interference. Impugned cancellation order clearly shows that it is not only involvement of petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case but police report was submitted showing that petitioner is a person having mens rea and is likely to create law and order problem. The aforesaid police report has been submitted considering the background in which the aforesaid criminal case has arisen wherein he was though acquitted but by giving benefit of doubt since the witnesses turned hostile and did not identify the petitioner. It was a broad day light incident in front of several persons, yet nobody came forward to adduce evidence.
4.The approach and relevant consideration in a criminal trial cannot be imported at the stage where the question as to whether a firearm licence should be granted or be allowed to continue with a person is to be considered. The object, the purpose, the approach in both these proceedings are totally different. In case of grant or continuance of a firearm licence the authority is basically concerned with maintenance of law and order in the area of his jurisdiction, public tranquility, possibility of misuse of firearm etc. It is a matter of now common knowledge and the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that broad day light heinous crimes are being committed in front of several persons but on account of fear or threat to the life of own and family members, lack of proper support by the administration for personal safety etc. it is extremely difficult to find witnesses to support the case of prosecution in criminal trial. That is prevailing in the society and cannot be ignored. Even though the authorities for various reasons may not place such facts on record, but the experience of a Judge of a superior Court which he gather being the part of system for a long time having come across a sizable cases dealing with different situations and having gone through various aspects of the matter, the Court can always have benefit of its experience in such matters to judge the order of authorities. The allegation against petitioner is of a broad day offence in a crowded area in presence of several persons. No witness could muster courage to make statement against him. Criminal trial which is governed by strict procedure of Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, therefore, resulted in his acquittal but that would not arrest the hands of executive authorities in deciding the question of continuance of firearm licence in favour of such a person considering various aspect of matter. It is not the case of petitioner that Collector or any executive authority has any bias or mala fide against him to deny him firearm licence. Once no such allegation has not been made against any other authority nor has been substantiated by making appropriate pleading by placing on record appropriate material, I find no reason to interfere. Both the authorities below have recorded their finding that allowing the petitioner to continue with firearm licence would be bound to create nuisance disturbing public tranquillity.
5.Considering the entire facts and circumstances as also the judgements of Courts below, I do not find it a fit case warranting interference.
6.Dismissed.
Dt. 14.7.2011
PS
