Allahabad High Court
Mohd Asif @ Asif vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3772 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mohd Asif @ Asif
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kaushik
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Arms license of petitioner was revoked on pendency of two criminal cases. An explanation was submitted by petitioner that in one of the case, Final Report was submitted and in other case, his parentage was wrongly mentioned and investigation is still pending.
Licensing authority took note of fact and found allegations in criminal case to be of serious nature and there was a subjective satisfaction, therefore, it was deemed necessary to revoke arms licence of petitioner for security of public peace and public safety. Appeal thereof was also rejected.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on the basis of solitary criminal case, arms license cannot be cancelled. He further submits that F.I.R. was lodged wayback in the year 2013 and according to instructions investigation is not concluded till date.
All the above submissions are opposed by learned Standing Counsel who submitted that considering contents of F.I.R. and role of petitioner as well as subjective satisfaction was based on material, therefore, impugned order may not be interfered with.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
According to police report petitioner was involved in Case Crime No.421 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149,307, 323, 153A, 341,336,436, 427, 188 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Contents of F.I.R. discloses that petitioner as well as co-accused have disturbed Maha Panchayat, made communal speech and firing was also exchanged wherein number of persons were injured.
Allegations as well as police report and subjective satisfaction of licensing authority does not give any scope for interference by this Court and there is likelihood that in case petitioner is allowed to keep licenced arm, it would be detrimental for public peace and public safety.
Recently, this Court in Writ-C No.740 of 2023, Mahesh Kumar Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, decided on 17.2.2023, has dealt with similar issue, relevant paragraph is mentioned hereinafter:
"6. Recently, this Court in Mahipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.1080 of 2023), decided on 14.02.2023 has an occasion to consider the similar submissions wherein it has referred to its earlier judgment in Indrajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021(10) ADJ 471, wherein it has been held that:
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)"
Considering facts and circumstances of present case, as well as discussion on law, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.2.2023
SB
