Shahadat vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10557 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Judgment reserved on 4.8.2021
 
Delivered on 18.8.2021. 
 
Court No. - 19
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12436 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Shahadat
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Rai,Mohammad Arshad Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Mohammad Arshad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. (i) Brief facts of the case are that an arm license was issued to the petitioner (for weapon Rifle No.0742-07467) (License No.230/2009/IIIrd B.

(ii) The District Magistrate, Hamirpur, respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred to as "respondent no.3") issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1959") on 6.1.2014 as to why the aforesaid licence be not cancelled on the ground of pendency of a criminal case bearing Case Crime No.1159 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 I.P.C. wherein it was alleged that the petitioner fired from his licensed weapon on 15.11.2013 which caused firearm injury to a person. The petitioner filed his objection to the said notice, that a false case was lodged against him and due to political rivalry and none was injured during the alleged occurrence.

(iii) The respondent no.3 after hearing the parties and considering the material on record vide impugned order dated 25.11.2014 suspended the aforesaid license issued to the petitioner till the decision of aforesaid criminal case. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:

" इस प्रकार पत्रावली में उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचती हूँ कि प्रथम दृष्टया ये तथ्य प्रकाश में आये हैं कि अनुज्ञापी के विरूद्ध जान लेवा हमला जैसा जघन्य अपराध कायम हुआ है। उसका परीक्षण सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा किया जाना है। विपक्षी के पास शस्त्र रहने से उसके द्वारा उसके विरूद्ध प्रस्तुत होने वाले गवाहान या सामाज को शस्त्र के बल पर डराये- धमकाये जाने जैसे कृत्य भी किये जा सकते हैं। अतः जनहित एवं जन सुरक्षा को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए मेरी राय में विपक्षी के पास दौरान मुकदमा अनुज्ञाप्ति/ शस्त्र का रहना न्यायोचित नहीं है। तद्नुसार विपक्षी के अनुज्ञाप्ति को उसके विरूद्ध विचाराधीन वाद के निस्तारण तक निलम्बित किया जाना न्यायोचित है।"

(iv) Petitioner being aggrieved by the suspension of his arm license, filed an appeal under section 18 of the "Act, 1959" before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda, (hereinafter referred to as "respondent no.2") raising the grounds that a false criminal case was registered against the petitioner and that he was released on bail during trial. The respondent no.2, after considering the contents of appeal and oral submission, did not find any error in the order passed by the respondent no.3 and dismissed the appeal. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:

"लिखित बहस के तथ्यों को देखने के उपरान्त प्रश्नगत आदेश व अवर न्यायालय की पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया। अपीलार्थी के विरूद्ध पंजीकृत मु०अ०सं०-1159/2013 धारा 147,148,149 व 307 आई०पी०सी० के आधार पर यह निष्कर्ष दिया गया है कि अनुज्ञापी के विरूद्ध जान लेवा हमला जैसा जघन्य अपराध कायम हुआ है। उसका परीक्षण सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा किया जाना है। विपक्षी के पास शस्त्र रहने से उसके द्वारा अपने विरूद्ध प्रस्तुत होने वाले गवाहान या समाज को शस्त्र के बल पर डराये धमकाये जाने जैसे कृत्य भी किये जा सकते है। इसलिए जनहित एवं जन सुरक्षा को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए विपक्षी/अपीलार्थी के पास दौरान मुकदमा अनुज्ञाप्ति/शस्त्र का रहना न्यायोचित नहीं पाया है। अधीनस्थ न्यायालय का उक्त निष्कर्ष एवं निर्णय में कोई विधिक त्रुटि नहीं है। वर्णित अपराधिक मामले में दर्ज रिपोर्ट के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि वादी मुकदमा के पिता को अपीलार्थी द्वारा अपनी बन्दूक से गोली सीने में मारी है, जिससे वह गंभीर रूप से घायल हुए है और उनकी जान कुछ लोगो के प्रयास से बची है। लोक शान्ति एवं जन सुरक्षा के दृष्टिगत पारित प्रश्नगत आदेश के विरूद्ध प्रस्तुत अपील में ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य/तथ्य प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया जिससे अपील स्वीकार योग्य हो। उक्त के दृष्टिगत प्रश्नगत आदेश में किसी हस्तक्षेप की आवाश्यकता प्रतीत नहीं होती है। अतः अपील निरस्त होने योग्य है।"

(v) Being aggrieved by both the orders aforesaid, this writ petition has been filed wherein counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case was registered against the petitioner, wherein he was already been granted bail and mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to suspend the arms licence. There was no material before the authorities that it was necessary for security of public peace or for public safety to suspend the arms license of petitioner.

4 (i) Aforesaid submissions are opposed by the learned Standing Counsel, that admittedly an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under the aforesaid offences, wherein trial is still pending and he has only been granted bail.

(ii) Allegations made in the F.I.R. are of serious nature, that the petitioner has fired from his licensed gun which caused injury to a person. The offence is punishable upto life imprisonment.

(iii) The authorities have come to the specific conclusion that there was threat to public peace and public safety. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the operative portion of the impugned orders, referred above.

5. The arms licence of the petitioner was suspended on the ground that there was an F.I.R. pending against him as well as on the ground that it was necessary for the security of the public peace and for public safety. The allegations in the F.I.R against the petitioner were of very serious in nature that he had fired from his licensed gun which caused injury to a person. Though while granting bail, the learned trial court stated that no injury was caused to anyone during the occurrence. Whether, injury was caused or not shall be subject matter of trial. Even in case no injury was caused, the conviction could be upto 10 years under Section 307 I.P.C. There was categorical finding by the respondent nos.2 and 3 that due to conduct of the petitioner there was a threat to public peace and public safety.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any argument or material which can contradict basis of reasoning of the impugned order.

7. It was not a case that merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, the license of the petitioner was revoked. It was a case where there was an F.I.R. against the petitioner under Section 307 I.P.C. alleging that the petitioner has used his fire arm weapon which itself was sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was a threat from the petitioner for public safety and security. The licensing authority has rightly suspended the arms licence of the petitioner deeming it necessary for the security of public peace and public safety.

8. There is no reason for this Court to disturb the findings arrived at by the respondent nos.2 and 3 in the impugned orders.

9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date:-18.8.2021

SB