Suresh Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4829 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3599 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Suresh Pal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipul Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

Petitioner is involved in a serious offence of attempt to murder as well as committing an offence under Arms Act and this was the ground to cancel his arms license with specific finding that it was deemed necessary for security of public peace and public safety to revoke his arms license which was upheld in appeal.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in F.I.R. However, during investigation, his name was disclosed and thereafter charge-sheet was filed against him wayback in the year 2015. He further on instructions submits that he has no knowledge about present status of trial. He further submits that since the petitioner has not been convicted, therefore, merely on the ground of F.I.R., his arms license cannot be cancelled and has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench in Writ-C No.31473 of 2019 Rajeev Kumar @ Monu Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Ors, decided on 14.9.2022.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that there are very serious allegations against petitioner that he has attacked on police party and thereafter charge-sheet was filed and there are specific material, therefore, it was deemed fit to revoke the arms license of the petitioner for the security of public peace and public safety.

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

It is not in dispute that petitioner is facing trial for a very serious offence that he was involved along with other co-accused in assaulting police party as well as for firing upon them. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against petitioner and co-accused for offence under Section 147, 148,149,160,307 I.P.C. as well as under Section 5/25 Arms Act.

It is well settled that arms license is a privilege and it does not fall under any category of constitutional or fundamental right. When arms license is issued to a person he is under an obligation to maintain his character/behaviour beyond any allegations being of a person of a bad character i.e. either not to commit or to create an apprehension which may likely to disturb public peace or public safety.

In the present case, petitioner was involved in an offence of assaulting police party in open area as well as he has violated condition of arms license by misusing licensed firearm therefore, there are circumstances which are sufficient that if arms license is not revoked there is likelihood that he may disturb public peace or public safety.

In Rajeev Kumar (supra), Court has mainly relied upon Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti and Ors, 1978 AWC 122, wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that merely on basis of F.I.R., an arms license can be cancelled, only when there is a consideration that it would be deemed necessary for security of public peace and public safety and it does not bar that Licensing Authority may consider contents of F.I.R. and if it is found that allegations are of such nature that maintaining of arms license will be detrimental to public peace and public safety, arms license can be revoked.

This Court has discussed the above issue in detail in Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr,2021 (10) ADJ 471 and relevant paragraph nos.16,17,18 and 19 thereof are mentioned hereinafter:

16. The words "public peace and public order" are normally considered to maintain peace and order at public at large. However, there may be instances where though the immediate danger may be to an individual, but it may have threat to the public at large. For example a fire arm licensee entered inside the house of a neighbour and threatened him or undertook blank firing by licensed weapon or otherwise, though it may be itself be violative or not violative of conditions fire arm license, but this act is not only a threat to an individual, but is definitely likely to cause disturbance of public peace and public order to public at large, therefore, in these circumstances for security of public peace or for public order, the licensing authority may suspend or revoke the arms licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act, of 1959. Similarly, a person/licensee who is involved in a case of murder or attempt to murder or any offence affecting human body or any other serious offence, there may be likelihood of breach of public peace or public order.

17. The words used in Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959 is "deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety" i.e. in order to secure public peace or for public safety, the licensing authority if deems necessary, may suspend or revoke the licence. It is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may take place to revoke or suspend the arms licence. The licensing authority on the basis of material available, if deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety may revoke the arms licence. Therefore, at this stage subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority comes into picture and if the licensing authority finds that due to certain act whether it is affecting to an individual or public at large, may for the security of public peace or for public safety, may suspend or revoke the arms licence. This is a precautionary measure, therefore, it is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may occur. Therefore, even the criminal antecedent of the licensee are very important factor for consideration for granting license. In these circumstances, even pendency of a criminal case involving serious offence may be sufficient to suspend or revoke the arms licence. Similarly, even after the acquittal, the nature of acquittal may be an important factor to consider whether there may be a likelihood of disturbance of public peace and safety especially in cases where the offences are against the State, offence against public tranquillity, offences affecting human body, offences affecting life, and sexual offences etc.

18. The licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by this Court which is no way connected or does not have any inkling of situations. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licencing authority on the basis of situation then existing, except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material. (See Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1997 (34) ACC 499).

19. There must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licensee is not fit to continue holding of licence. If the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that a continued existence of fire arms licence with a person charged with various offence may endanger security of public peace and public safety then revocation of licence under Section 17 cannot be said to arbitrary or without jurisdiction. (See, 1999 SCC Online Pat 206, (1999) 3 PLJR 203, Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others)"

In view of above discussions and taking note that petitioner is involved in a very serious offence of firing on police party, which is sufficient material for subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that it was deemed necessary to revoke the arms license of the petitioner for the security of public peace and public order, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 14.2.2023

SB