Rajpal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 6138 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 20.02.2023
 
Delivered on 27.02.2023
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5041 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajpal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Petitioner is a licensee of a firearm. Initially on the basis of a criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 373 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC, which was lodged against petitioner on 15.07.2017, as well as on the ground of another criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 659 of 2015, under Section 60 of Excise Act, a show cause notice was issued by Licensing Authority under Section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959 and licence of petitioner was put under suspension and reply was sought. Petitioner submitted his reply wherein he denied lodging of case under Section 60 Excise Act. So far as other criminal case is concerned, petitioner replied that he was on bail and there was no ground that keeping licensed arm was detrimental for security of public peace or for public safety.

2. Licensing Authority vide order dated 14.06.2018 considering averments of FIR that there was allegation of firing against petitioner as well as considering that there was another case under Excise Act, recorded its subjective satisfaction and revoked firearm licence of petitioner. Thereafter petitioner filed appeal against aforesaid order, which was partly allowed and matter was remanded back to Licensing Authority to consider afresh taking note that there was no case against petitioner under Excise Act as well as in another case after investigation charge sheet was not filed under Section 307 or 308 IPC but under Section 325 IPC alongwith other offences.

3. On remand, Licensing Authority by means of impugned order dated 14.12.2021 considered the allegations which was found to be true after investigation that petitioner has assaulted victim by edged weapon and there was likelihood of repeating the incident, therefore, on the basis of subjective satisfaction again revoked firearm licence of petitioner and appeal thereof was also rejected.

4. Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that on the basis of solitary criminal case, firearm licence of petitioner cannot be cancelled and placed reliance on this Court's judgment in Suneel vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 42274 of 2019), decided on 03.02.2020 and Nar Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 28821 of 2018), decided on 15.09.2021. Learned counsel has further submitted that in first round of litigation Appellate Authority has remanded case with specific observation that petitioner was not involved in any case under Excise Act as well as in another case though FIR was lodged under Section 307 IPC also but after investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 325 IPC alongwith other Sections and that there is no material before Licensing Authority that it was deem necessary for security of public peace or for public safety to revoke firearm licence of petitioner but same was not considered.

5. Above submissions are opposed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, who supported impugned order for the reasons given therein.

6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

7. 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)."

8. It is well settled that firearm license is a privilege and it does not fall in the category of Constitutional or Fundamental Right as held by Full Bench of this Court in Kailash Nath vs. State, 1985 AWC 493 (FB).

9. It is not in dispute that petitioner is facing trial in only one case wherein though initially FIR was lodged under Section 307 IPC also however after investigation charge sheet has been filed only under Section 325 IPC alongwith other Sections. In first round of litigation Appellate Authority has remanded case to consider afresh on the basis of allegations exist at the stage of filing of charge sheet. Licensing Authority has considered the case and contents of FIR which was found proved atleast that prima facie case exist against petitioner that he indulged in offence of assault by edged weapon and a case under Section 325 IPC, i.e., punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt, was prima facie made out.

10. As held in Indrajeet Singh (supra) that Licensing Authority can take note of contents of FIR to ascertain the severeness of offence alleged and in the present case petitioner was involved in a case where he used force and assaulted injured, who suffered grievous hurt. Licensing Authority on the basis of subjective satisfaction based on material available found that it was necessary to revoke firearm licence of petitioner for security of public peace or for public safety. Said subjective satisfaction cannot be interfered in writ jurisdiction as there is no allegation that it was not based on material on record or suffers with mala fide.

11. The outcome of above discussion is that there is no irregularity or illegality in orders impugned in this writ petition.

12. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :-27.02.2023

AK