Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ashrfi Devi vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 August, 2012
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 26
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20226 of 1999
Petitioner :- Smt. Ashrfi Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- K.S. Tiwari
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.1.1998 passed by the District Magistrate cancelling her arms licence and the order of the Commissioner, the Appellate Authority dated 10.2.1999 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.
Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was stated to be Pradhan of Gram Sabha Bishnodi, Tehsil Patiali, District Etah since 1988 up to 1995 and later on in the year 1995, she was again elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kutabpur Sarai.
The contention of the petitioner is that because of her raising voice against the mis-deeds and atrocities committed on innocent people, the local police became antagonistic towards her. While she was Gram Pradhan, she was granted licence of a Revolver bearing No. 13711 and she purchased a Revolver bearing No. 123 Webley Scot. According to her, the licence of the Revolver had been renewed from time to time. She was also given a licence of S.B.B.L. Gun bearing No. 12977 and she purchased a S.B.B.L. Gun bearing No. 7307. This licence was also renewed from time to time and was valid upto 31.12.1998. During the general election of Gram Pradhan in 1995, an incident occurred in which a First Information Report was lodged against her and her sons-in-law and accordingly a report was submitted by the police of Police Station Patiali dated 18.8.1995 to the District Magistrate, District Etah.
The further contention of the petitioner is that a show cause notice was issued to her and although she has filed her reply along with the copies of the judgments in the various crime cases against, her gun licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 6.1.1998.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate cancelling her gun licence, she preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 before the Commissioner. Her appeal was also rejected.
I have heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The order is being dictated in open court.
From the order of the District Magistrate, it will be seen that the reasons given for cancellation of the Arms Licence is that there were five criminal cases registered against the petitioner which are as follows:
Crime No. 74/91, under Section - 302, 201 I.P.C; and .
Crime No. 114/91, under Section-302, 307 I.P.C.; and
Crime No. 140/95, under Section -364A I.P.C.; and
Crime No. 131/95, under Section-362, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Crime No. 132/95, under Sections -147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C.
The District Magistrate therefore, formed an opinion that since the cases pending against the petitioner were of serious nature, relating to Section 302 I.P.C. (murder) and 364 A, I.P.C. (kidnapping for ransom), therefore, it was not in public interest that the petitioner should continue in possession of the arms licence. The District Magistrate also recorded a finding that in view of the serious charges against the petitioner, there was a possibility of her misusing her fire arms for criminal activities.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act but the said appeal was also rejected on the same grounds that there was several cases registered against the petitioner relating to the Sections 302 and 364-A I.P.C.
From a perusal of the impugned order and the emerging facts, it will be seen that;
(i) in Case Crime No. 74 of 1991, under Section 302/201 I.P.C., a final report has been filed by the police.
(ii) In Case Crime No. 114 of 1991, under Section 302/307 I.P.C., the petitioner has been acquitted on 8.2.1994.
(iii) In Case Crime No. 131 of 1995, under Section 362/504/506 of I.P.C., the petitioner has been acquitted on 13.5.1996 and in;
(iv) Case Crime No. 132 of 1995, under Sections 147/148/149/307/504/506 I.P.C., the petitioner has been acquitted on 27.2.1996.
According to the petitioner, the judgments in these cases were filed by her before the District Magistrate but the District Magistrate failed to take notice of the same.
So far as the Crime case No. 140 of 1995, under Section 364-A I.P.C. is concerned, the petitioner on 10.7.2012 was granted time by this Court to file a supplementary affidavit, bringing on record the information regarding the said case. The petitioner has today filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the judgment of the trial court dated 9.8.1999 in which also she has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 364A and 368 I.P.C. in Case No. 111 of 1995, State Vs. Rajpal and others, in which the petitioner is the accused-respondent No. 3.
In these circumstances, the petitioner having been acquitted in all the Criminal Cases, which were filed against her and which have been referred to in the order of the District Magistrate, there is now no other material on record to justify the order dated 6.1.1998 cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner.
It is also noteworthy that at the time of admission of the writ petition on 17.5.1999, this Court while issuing notice had been pleased to pass an order. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
"In the meantime, the orders passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the licence of the petitioner to possess the fire arm as well as that of the Commissioner passed u/s 18 of the Arms Act dismissing the appeal shall remain in abeyance. The resultant effect of this order would be that the petitioner shall continue to possess the fire arm under the licence which was granted to him and if his weapon has been impounded/deposited in pursuance of the impugned orders, it shall immediately be returned to him."
Since in terms of the above interim order not only the licence of the petitioner has been restored to her but it is also directed by the Court that in case the weapons in her possession have been impounded or deposited, the same should be returned to her, in these circumstances, since in the last 14 years, the petitioner has continued to be in possession of her arms licence as well as weapons purchased by her under the said arms licence therefore in view of the interim order of this Court, and the observations noted above in regard to the criminal cases said to be pending against her, in all of which she has been acquitted. The impugned orders dated 6.1.1998 of the District Magistrate and 10.2.1999 of the Appellate Authority-Commissioner are not liable to survive and are accordingly, quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.8.2012
Arun K. Singh
