Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home ... on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1003982 of 2014
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.11.2012 whereby the firearm license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 23.08.2013 whereby the review application was rejected and the order dated 19.05.2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner was granted a firearm license. It appears that a report was made based upon two criminal cases registered against the petitioner being Case Crime No.276 of 2012, under Sections 147, 307, 385, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act. It is on record that in the said Case Crime No.276 of 2012, the charge-sheet was not filed under Section 307 IPC. Based upon the said two criminal cases, proceedings were initiated for cancelling the arm license. In the cancellation order, a reference has also been made in respect of the another case against the petitioner being Case Crime No.247 of 2004. Solely on the basis of the said two cases registered against the petitioner, the arm license was cancelled on 03.11.2012. The petitioner preferred a review petition seeking review of the order dated 03.11.2012 which was rejected on 23.08.2013 on the ground that there is no power of review available. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which too was dismissed on 19.05.2014.
The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the said two criminal cases registered against the petitioner are false cases and the trial has come to an end and the petitioner has been acquitted in the said two cases by means of the judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed in the case initiated vide Case Crime No.276 of 2012. He submits that in the other case, a final report was filed which has also been accepted. In the light of the said, the petitioner argues that the foundation of the orders passed against the petitioner has vanished and thus, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.
The Counsel for the petitioner further argues that even otherwise mere pendency of the criminal case is not enough to cancel the license of firearm unless the licensing authority comes to the conclusion that the license be cancelled for security of the public peace or for public safety. He argues that neither there is any material nor has any finding been recorded that the possession of the firearm license would amount to breach of public peace or public safety.
The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposes the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that at the time of passing of the orders impugned, the said cases are pending against the petitioner and thus there is no error in the orders impugned in the petition.
In the light of the arguments raised, it is clear that the foundation for passing of the orders impugned are no more in existence after the petitioner having been acquitted vide judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed in the case arising out of the Case Crime No.276 of 2012, even otherwise in the impugned orders there is no finding of the licensing authority to the effect that the possession of the arm license would cause any threat to public peace or public safety. Merely because a case has been instituted against the petitioner, the same would not enough to form a view that there is a threat of public peace or safety.
In view of both the reasoning recorded above, the impugned orders dated 03.11.2012, 23.08.2013 and 19.05.2014 are unsustainable and are set aside.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 1.4.2022
akverma
