Allahabad High Court
Jagram Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others on 17 November, 2011
Bench: Sunil Hali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43042 of 2005
Petitioner :- Jagram Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Lalji Yadav,Rajesh Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J.
The license of the petitioner stands cancelled by the District Magistrate vide order dated on 7.3.2003. The appeal preferred against the said order also stands dismissed. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
The ground for canceling the license is based upon a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat and the station House Officer, Baraur to the District Magistrate which relates to an incident occurred on 27.6.2002 in which it is stated that petitioner had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of his brothers son and there he was indiscriminately firing in the air as a result of which one lady Sumankali died and a child become injured. An FIR was registered against the petitioner vide Case Crime No. 106 of 2002 under Section 304 IPC at P.S. Baraura. It is further averred in the report that the petitioner has been continuously threatening the witnesses in the said case and made his gun available to the antisocial elements for the purpose of harassing the witnesses in the said case and has also been publicly displaying his firearm in order to frightening the people of the said area. On the basis of this report, the District Magistrate served a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his license be not cancelled. Petitioner replied to the said show cause notice denying the allegation levelled against him. Disagreeing with the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, licensing authority recorded his satisfaction that from the act and behaviour of the petitioner it is not in the interest of security of public to permit the arm license to remain with such a person and cancelled the arm license of the petitioner vide order dated 7.3.2003. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirmed the said order vide order dated 29.3.2005. It is under this circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
Petitioner's contention is that one incident of firing which has resulted in the death of the lady which ultimately lead to filing of the FIR against the petitioner does not even made ground for cancellation of the firearm license. He further contends that the petitioner has been acquitted in the said case mentioned in the FIR. The subjective satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate mentioning certain incident whereby the license of the petitioner is said to have misused his firearm is not based upon any objective material. The District Magistrate was required to disclose material on the basis of which certain satisfaction has been recorded.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act empowers the District Magistrate to revoke or suspend the arm license in case he is of the opinion that it is necessary to doe so for the security of public peace and public safety. Analyzing the import of the aforementioned section, it clearly reveals that a satisfaction has to be recorded by the District Magistrate on the basis of objective material to be supplied by the District Superintendent of Police or and other agency. The order should also disclose the overall character profile of the applicant supported by various instances of act and omission in threatening peace and security of the area.
It is trite in law that filing of FIR in itself is not a ground for cancellation of the license nor his acquittal in any such case is a ground for revival of the license. Filing of the FIR or registration of any case may be an instance against the applicant for revoking or suspending the license. These circumstances may lead to formation of subjective opinion by the District Magistrate after considering the other factors relatable to the question as to whether such act can result in disturbance of public peace and tranquility. However, in the present case, while the District Magistrate has referred to certain instances that the petitioner has been allowing the antisocial elements to use the gun or has been threatening the witnesses, has not disclosed the material on the basis of which subjective opinion has been framed. Petitioner's contention is correct on this issue that nothing has been disclosed to him in the order of cancellation of firearm license.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned are hereby set aside.The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, concerned for fresh consideration in an objective manner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on merits expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioner to produce materials to substantiate his case regarding the necessity to possess the arm license.
Order Date :- 17.11.2011
RKS/
