Rana Ajeet Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Home ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9335 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1004601 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Rana Ajeet Pratap Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy.Home Deptt.Civil Sectt.Lko.Andors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Raj,Ravi Kumar Singh,Vijay Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by opposite party No.2 under Section 18 of The Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1959") and also for quashing of the order of Cancellation of Arm Licence dated 28.11.2013 passed by opposite party No.3 under Section 17(3) of the Act, 1959.

2. Brief facts of the present case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner was a licence holder of rifle since the year 1997 and his rifle was not involved in any criminal activity and it was renewed from time to time. The petitioner was the Chairman of Ganna Sahkari Samiti, Belwai, District-Sultanpur; Manager of Late Birendra Pratap Singh Smarak Degree College as well as he was the Ex-vice President of Allahabad University, Allahabad and his brother's wife was Block Pramukh of Block-Akhand Nagar, District-Sultanpur. Due to these reasons, several political persons including their supporters keep animosity with the petitioner.

3. Due to said animosity, one Panna Lal had lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No.97 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 504, 506 & 324 I.P.C. After the investigation, final report was submitted on 24.04.2012. Due to political rivalry, one Shri Mithai Lal had lodged an another F.I.R. on 09.04.2012 against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No.122 of 2012, under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 & 427 I.P.C. One Awadhesh Pratap Singh, who was involved in local politics and keeps political rivalry with the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No.316 of 2005, under Sections 332, 504 & 506 I.P.C. Petitioner has been enlarged on bail on the cases pertaining to the Case Crime Nos.122 of 2012 and 316 of 2005. In the said cases, charge sheet has been filed.

4. The Station House Officer, Police Station- Akhand Nagar, District-Sultanpur under the pressure and influence of the political rivals of the petitioner submitted a report before opposite party No.3 for cancelling arms licence of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the arms license of the petitioner was arbitrarily canceled under the influence of his political rivals who were belonging to the then ruling party upon the District Authorities. It is further submitted that the reason assigned to cancel the arms license in the impugned order is pendency of three criminal cases against the petitioner and the petitioner use to show his fire arm which is affecting public peace and security.

6. It is further submitted that word "public peace" has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Singh Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lko. and others reported in 2015 (91) ACC 202 whereby it has been held that the word "public peace" or "public safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only and the Licensing Authority is under obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and public safety involved in the cases.

7. It is further submitted that mere pendency of criminal cases and mere on the basis of apprehension cannot be a ground for passing an order under Section 17(3) of the Act, 1959 and in support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 20.2.2020 passed in Writ Petition Misc. Single No.5939 of 2015 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.Of  Home Civil Sectt.Lko.& Ors.), Ram Murti Madhukar vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD-905], Ram Karpal Singh vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Ors. [2006 (24) LCD 114] and Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner and Ors. decided on 07.02.2020 in Writ-C No. 56378 of 2006. The relevant paras of the judgments are quoted herein below:-

8. In Ram Murti Madhukar (supra), this Court has held in paragraph no. 8, is quoted as under :-

(8) It is also well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of Arms Act, are not sufficient ground for passing of the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 of the Act. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. D. M. Almora, AIR 1993 All 291"

9. In the case of Ram Karpal Singh (supra), this Court has held as following in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 which are being reproduced hereunder:-

 6, Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the two judgments of this Court reported in 2002 ACC; Habib v. State of U.P

7. Para 3 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

"Para 3: The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal  case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the license under Arrns Act, has been deal with by a Division Bench in this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying  upon the earlier decision reported in Mai Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot be in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order  canceling or revoking the .licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned order also suffers from the same infirmity as was  pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed.

10. This Court in the case of Ram Prasad (supra) has held as under. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgments i.e. 24,25,28,32 and 36 are being quoted hereunder:-

24. In Habib v. State of U.P. and others [2002 (44) ACC 783] this Court held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking licence of fire arm was not justified. Paragraph 3 of this judgment reads as under:

"3. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside."

25. In Satish Singh v. District Magistrate, Sultanpur 2009 (4) ADJ 33 (LB), this Court elaborately explained what is detrimental to the security of the public peace or public safety and held that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Satish Singh case (supra) are being reproduced as under:

"6. A plain reading of section 17 indicates that the arms licence can be cancelled or suspended on the ground that the licensing authority deems it necessary for security of the public peace or the public safety. In the present case, while passing the impugned order, neither the District Magistrate nor the appellate authority has recorded the finding as to how and under what circumstance, the possession of arms licence by the petitioner, is detrimental to the public peace or the public security and safety. Merely because criminal case is pending more so, does not seem to attract the provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act. To attract the provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act with regard to public peace, security and safety it shall always be incumbent on the authorities to record a finding that how, under what circumstances and what manner, the possession of arms licence shall be detrimental to public peace, safety and security. In absence of such finding merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending without any mitigating circumstances with regard to endanger of public peace, safety and security, the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act, shall not satisfy.

7. Needless to say that right to life and liberty are guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the arms licences are granted for personal safety and security after due inquiry by the authorities in accordance with the provisions contained in Arms Act, 1959. The provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act with regard to suspension or cancellation of arms licence cannot be invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner. The provisions contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act should be construed strictly and not liberally. The conditions provided therein, should be satisfied by the authorities before proceeding ahead to cancel or suspend an arms licence. We may take notice of the fact that any reason whatsoever, the crime rate is raising day by day. The Government is not in a position to provide security to each and every person individually. Right to possess arms is statutory right but right to life and liberty is fundamental guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Corollary to it, it is citizen's right to possess firearms for their personal safety to save their family from miscreants. It is often said that ordinarily in a civilised society, only civilised persons require arms licence for their safety and security and not the criminals. Of course, in case the government feels that arms licence are abused for oblique motive or criminal activities, then appropriate measures may be adopted to check such mal-practice. But arms licence should not be suspended in a routine manner mechanically, without application of mind and keeping in view the letter and spirit of Section 17 of the Arms Act." 

28. In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported 2013(31) LCD 1460 (LB) this Court after referring to the earlier pronouncements in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD 905] and Habib Vs. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows:

"9. Further, while passing the impugned order also the licensing authority has not given any adequate finding that if petitioner holds the arms license then the same shall be against the public peace or public safety.

"10. "Public peace" or ''public safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only and before passing of the order of cancellation of arm license as per Section 17 (3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case in view of the judgment given by this court in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 916) LCD 905], wherein it has been held that license can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and pendency of a criminal case."

11. Further, this Court in the case of Habib v. State of U.P. 2002 ACC 783 held as under:

"The question as to whether mere Involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and Others, 1978 AWC 122, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision in Masi Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and are hereby quashed.

There is yet another reason that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case and at present there is neither any case pending, nor any conviction has been attributed to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure SA-I and II to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to have the fire-arm licence."

32. In Ghanshyam Gupta v. State of U.P. and others [2016 (34) LCD 3035] this Court has again held that the necessary ingredients to invoke jurisdiction of the licencing authority in terms of Section 17 were clearly lacking and no finding had been returned on the basis of materials produced in that regard by the licencing authority, which must justify passing of the order of cancellation. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is being quoted as under:

"9. In a recent decision of Lucknow Bench of this court in Surya Narain Mishra v. Stae of U.P. and others, reported in 2015 (7) ADJ 510, similar view has been taken by this Court relying upon subsequent decisions. Para-14 of the judgment is reproduced:

"14. In the case of Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P., 2013 (80) ACC 231 this court in paragraph No.3 held as under:-

"The ground for issue of show-cause notice, suspension and ultimately cancellation of the licence is that one and precisely one criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The District Magistrate has also held that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He has gone further to observe that if the licence remained intact, the petitioner, may disturb public peace and tranquility. The same findings have been given by the Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that this Court is repeating the law of the land, but the deaf ears of the administrative officers do not ready to succumb the law of the land. The settled law is that mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that involvement in such criminal case shall be detrimental to public peace and tranqulity shall not create the ground for the cancellation of Armed Licence. In Ram Suchi v. Commissioner, Devipatan Division reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1643, it was held that this law was relied upon in Balram Singh Vs. Satate of U.P. 2006 (24) LCD 1359. Mere apprehension without substance is simply an opinion which has no legs to stand. Personal whims are not allowed to be reflected while acting as a public servant.

36. In the present case the petitioner's licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. The petitioner was later on acquitted of the criminal case by order dated 17.1.2003. A perusal of the order of acquittal does not show the use of fire arm. After acquittal the very basis of the order of cancellation vanished. The finding of the District Magistrate as affirmed by the Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of public peace and the public security that the licence remained with the petitioner/licencee, is not based on any evidence/material, except the police reports which in their turn were in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. On mere apprehension expressed in the impugned orders that the petitioner would misuse the fire arm and would extend threat to the persons of the weaker section of the society, the arm licence could not be cancelled.

11. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was involved in the heinous crimes thus, revival of arm license may disturb the public peace or safety.

12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the records and judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the suspension and revocation of arm license of the petitioner was made by the respondents considering the police report wherein it had been mentioned that permitting arm with the petitioner would cause breach of public peace and public safety as three criminal cases were pending against him without recording any subjective satisfaction that how there is breach of public peace and public safety. The said finding in the cancellation order is nothing but is in pursuance of the material provided by the police i.e. pendency of three criminal cases.

13. The word "public peace" or "public safety" has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Singh (supra) interpreting that the word "public peace" of "public safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order and public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only and before passing the order of the cancellation of arms under Section 17(3) of the Act, 1959 , the Licencing Authority is under obligation to apply his mind which is not applied in the present case.

14. Perusal of the aforesaid manifests that none of the aforesaid grounds in pursuance of which, the impugned orders were passed against the petitioner is in consonance with the Section 17 of the Act, 1959. Mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case cannot be in any way affect the public safety or public peace.

15. For the foregoing reasons, the orders impugned herein cancelling and revoking the arms license of the petitioner are not justified and not tenable in law and hence the order dated 28.11.2013 and the appellate order dated 14.05.2015 are hereby quashed.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 5.8.2022

Sachin