Rambrij vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9246 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17235 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Rambrij
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Punya Sheel Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

Heard Shri Punya Sheel Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

The licensing authority by the first order impugned dated 18.10.2014 cancelled the fire arm licence of the petitioner on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case registered as Case Crime No. 08 of 2012, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 323 IPC, in which charge sheet No. 6/12 was submitted on 04.07.2012, under sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC, in relation to an incident dated 08.03.2012. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation order was dismissed by order dated 04.03.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and even otherwise, specific stand before the appellate authority was to the effect that the petitioner had deposited his fire arm at the police station concerned before the elections of 2012 and taken away the same in August, 2012. Learned counsel further submits that charge sheet has not been submitted under section 307 IPC and that there is nothing on record to indicate that any fire arm was used in the commission of alleged offence or that any specific role of the petitioner was there. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, mere involvement of the petitioner is no ground to cancel the fire arm licence, particularly when offences are not serious in nature or the use of fire arm is not found in the incident concerning criminal case. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment this Court in the case of Mewa Lal @ Kunna vs Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad And Another , reported in 2014 Law Suit (All) 3650, with specific reference to paragraph Nos. 11 to 14, which read as follows:

"11. In the case of Rama Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. & others , reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1045 it has been held that a license cannot be refused/suspended/cancelled merely because there is an ordinary breach of law and order.

12. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced herein under:

8.Relying upon Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs. District Magistrate Almora; AIR 1993 All. 291, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has held in clear words that a licence can not be refused/suspended/cancelled merely because there is an ordinary breach of law and order.

9.'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. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under 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.

10.In Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], this Court has held that licence can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Janhit).

11. It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda & another.

13. Further, in the case of Hiramani Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2011(29)LCD 829 it has been held that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of fire arm license. The relevant para 8 reads as under:

8. This Court in the case of Ashok Rao vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010 (68) accused applicants. 441 while considering the authority to be exercised under section 17 of the Indian Arms Act has taken the view that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be ground for cancellation of fire arm license unless and until finding is returned by the authority concerned that possession of fire arm has the tendency of threatening public peace and public safety.

14. In the case of Rajendra Singh vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others, reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1041 'Public Peace' or 'Public Safety' has been defined. The relevant paras 6 & 7 read as under:

6. '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. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under 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.

7.It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that since charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, irrespective of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet, the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case is an admitted fact and, therefore, it would not be in the interest of the Society to grant licence to the petitioner and, therefore, the orders impugned do not require any interference.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the trial concerning the aforesaid case crime has not yet been concluded. Moreover, the charge sheet has been submitted under sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC excluding the offence punishable under section 307 IPC. Further, prima facie no specific role of the petitioner is found , even in the criminal case, which was registered against the various persons so as to attract provisions of cancellation of fire arm licence, moreso, when there is no allegation that particular fire arm was used in the alleged commission of offence.

Having considered the ratio laid down in the aforesaid authorities, which have been considered by this Court in the case of Mewa Lal (supra), I find that the orders impugned cannot be sustained.

The writ petition is allowed.

The impugned orders dated 18.10.2014 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Agra and 04.03.2016 passed by Commissioner, Agra region Agra are hereby quashed.

The matter is relegated to the licensing authority, who shall examine the claim of the petitioner afresh through the committee concerned after obtaining requisite reports from the authorities concerned within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

In case, nothing adverse is found factually or legally against the petitioner, appropriate orders in accordance with law shall be passed.

Order Date :- 29.3.2023

Sazia