Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash @ Khanjhati Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Kshitij Shailendra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98597
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53920 of 2017
Petitioner :- Om Prakash @ Khanjhati Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh,Shiv Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh along with Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.
2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.07.2007 calling upon him to show cause as to why his firearm licence be not cancelled on the ground of cancealment of his address as well as his involvement in five criminal cases described herein below:-
"(i) Case Crime No.5 of 2000, under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC;
(ii) Case Crime No.58 of 2000, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC;
(iii) Case Crime No.09 of 2006, under Section 110 CrPC;
(iv) Case Crime No.170 of 2006, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act; and
(v) Case Crime No.566 of 2006, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 353, 504, 506 IPC."
3. The aforesaid suspension order was challenged by the petitioner by means of Writ-C No. 55966 of 2007 in which an interim order was passed on 04.12.2007 staying the suspension order. However, proceedings for cancellation of the firearm licence were not stayed.
4. By the first order impugned dated 14.04.2015, the firearm licence of the petitioner has been cancelled against which he preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by order dated 16.10.2017, the second order impugned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cancellation has been ordered on the ground of petitioner's involvement in criminal cases, however in so far as Case Crime No.5 of 2000 is concerned, he has been acquitted on 17.11.2008, in Case Crime No.58 of 2000, he has been acquitted on 17.11.2009, proceedings of Case Crime No.9 of 2006 have lapsed with passage of time as the same were registered under Section 110 CrPC, in Case Crime No.170 of 2006, the petitioner has been acquitted on 14.09.2008 and in Case Crime No.566 of 2006, the petitioner was not even charge sheeted and therefore he has no concern with same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the licensing authority by cancelling the licence has recorded the factum of acquittal in the criminal cases, it has been observed that acquittal would not change the criminal nature of the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kamaluddin Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2017 (3) JIC (All) (LB) in which this Court, after relying upon various authorities, has laid down that mere involvement in criminal case is not a ground to cancel the firearm licence. It has further been argued that another ground taken in the cancellation order is that the petitioner had concealed his address at the time of obtaining the firearm licence and this ground has not been taken in the show cause notice.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and has argued that the show cause notice was issued on two grounds, the first ground was concealment of the address by the petitioner as is noted in the first paragraph of the show cause notice and the second ground is petitioner's involvement in five criminal cases. Learned Standing Counsel therefore submits that pursuant to the report submitted by Tehsildar concerned, the petitioner has shown himself to be permanent resident of village Jaipar and present resident of Village Sarhati, Police Station Lohta, however he did not mention his both the addresses but only one address and, therefore, he was guilty of concealment of material information, hence, licence has rightly been cancelled.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in so far as acquittal of the petitioner in three criminal cases, lapsing of proceedings in one case and non submission of the charge sheet against the petitioner disclosing his no involvement in fifth case, cancellation of firearm licence on the ground of petitioner's alleged involvement in the criminal case is not according to law as this Court has successfully laid down proposition to this effect which need not be reiterated, once a judgment has already been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to this effect i.e. Kamaluddin (supra).
9. In so far as second ground for cancellation i.e. concealment of address is concerned, I find that Section 17(3)(c) is a provision whereby on the ground of suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or an applicant for that purpose, licence can be cancelled.
10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in so far as the address issue is concerned, the stand of the petitioner before the licensing authority as well as before the Commissioner was that he had not concealed his address and his permanent address was disclosed in the application. Non disclosure of the other address would not amount to concealment of such nature which may warrant cancellation of firearm licence. I am also satisfied that merely because the petitioner was permanent resident of Village Jaipar and presently he was residing in village Sarhati, non disclosure of one address and disclosure of the other address would not amount to suppression of material information for the purposes of applying for licence. It may amount to an omission on the part of the petitioner but does not amount to concealment or suppression as, in the opinion of the court, the petitioner was not going to get any advantage out of disclosure of one address which was admittedly his permanent address.
11. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders impugned dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Appeal No. C2015140000804 of 2015 (Om Prakash Singh @ Khanjhati Vs. State of U.P.) and 10.04.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi in Case No. 07 of 2015 (State Vs. Om Prakash Singh @ Khanjhati) are hereby quashed.
12. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order along with an application before the Licensing Authority seeking restoration of his firearm licence.
13. The Licensing Authority shall call upon the report from the concerned Committee/officials and in case it is found that over a number of years the writ petition was pending, petitioner is not involved in an offence heinous in nature, the licence of the petitioner shall be restored and in case any such contrary record is found against the petitioner, the Licensing Authority shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
14. The aforesaid action shall be completed within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with an application is filed, as directed herein above.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023
AKShukla/-
