Allahabad High Court
Nisar vs Commissioner, Aligarh Division ... on 21 November, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209106
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34478 of 2018
Nisar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Commissioner, Aligarh Division Aligarh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, Mukesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Maddheshiya, Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal, Ved Byas Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no.2 dated 17.3.2017 passed in Case No.20131800649 under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and the order of the respondent no.1 dated 6.7.2018 passed in Appeal No.253 of 2017, passed under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1959, cancelling the firearm licence of the petitioner.
3. The facts of the present case are that petitioner was implicated in two criminal cases bearing Case Crime No.551 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 354B, 504, 506 IPC and Case Crime No.552 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 332, 504, 506, 354B IPC, pursuant to which a police report was submitted that his firearm licence No.4351/Jawan/Aligarh may be cancelled. The Licensing Authority, the respondent no.2, by its order dated 17.3.2017, on the basis of said police report, cancelled the firearm licence of the petitioner holding that petitioner's behaviour and conduct has criminal inclination. Therefore, possession of the firearm by him is detrimental to the security/peace of public. The appeal filed by petitioner was also dismissed by the order of respondent no.1 dated 6.7.2018.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have proceeded to cancel the firearm licence of the petitioner only on the ground that the criminal cases lodged against the petitioner is in respect of Section 307 IPC, which is a major offence, therefore, he appears to be a man with criminal inclination. The appellate court while considering the appeal of the petitioner has also referred to two criminal cases relating to the same incident, and has observed that as the appellant has not brought on record any material showing that he has been exonerated in the criminal cases, therefore, no interference in the order of the Licensing Authority may be made and his conduct and behaviour has criminal inclination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court dated 24.9.2019 passed in Session Trial No.1020 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.551 of 2013, and Session Trial No.1021 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.552 of 2013, in which the petitioner has been exonerated under Sections 307, 504 506 IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, granting benefit of doubt. He further contended that in the changed circumstances, the cancellation of his firearm licence is required to be re-considered.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that bare perusal of the police report submitted in the matter, it is evident that except for two criminal cases arising out of a solitary incident, there was no other basis for recommending the cancellation of firearm licence. It has further been argued that before the Licensing Authority, there was no other material except the police report and involvement of the petitioner in criminal cases registered against him. He has further contended that pendency of the criminal case cannot be a solitary ground for cancellation of firearm licence. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.34646 of 2019 (Mahendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), dated 20.12.2023.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has supported the orders of the Licensing Authority and the respondent no.2, cancelling the firearm licence of the petitioner. It has been contended that in the report submitted by police, it has also been observed that there is a possibility that petitioner may use his firearm in future. Moreover, the respondent nos.1 and 2 have recorded a categorical finding that the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner has criminal inclination, which is a threat to the security of public peace/public safety.
8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 provides the grounds on which licensing authority can suspend or revoke the fire arm licence. For ready reference Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is extracted as Under:-
"(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence?
(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or
(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.
9. I find that Section 17 (3) (B) of the Arms Act, 1959 provides that the fire arm licence can be cancelled if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. Licensing authority is empowered to suspend or revoke the fire arm licence but there must be material before him to form the opinion that it is necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence. This court in catena of judgments has already held that mere pendency of a criminal case against the person cannot be a ground for cancellation of his fire arm licence.
10. This court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (5) ADJ 594 has held that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of fire arm licence of a person. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the case of Pramod Kumar (Supra) are extracted as under :-
"8. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate Basti and others, 1979 (16)ACC 6 (sum), wherein the Division Bench relied upon an earlier decision in Mast Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573. In both the aforesaid cases it has been held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way effect the public security or public interest. In view of this proposition of law the order cancelling or revoking the licence of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of involvement and pendency of a criminal case is not tenable.
9. In Full Bench Decision of this Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984(10) ALR 223 and Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1985 (22) ACC 353 and in the case of Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1994 JIC 72 (All); 1995 (Supp) ACC 235, it has been held that mere pendency of a criminal case (s) is no ground for cancellation of arms licence. The effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions was also considered in Sadri Ram Vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others, 1998 (3) AWC 2102: 1998 (37) ACC 830.
10. This court in the case of Harprasad (supra) held as hereunder:
" involvement and pendency of a case crime is no ground for cancellation of fire-arm licence. It is settled law that after acquittal the very basis for cancellation of the arm licence stands vitiated. In this regard reference of the decision rendered in Lalji Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and another, 1999 (4) AWC 2952, has been made."
11. Thus in view of the admitted facts and the settled legal position that a fire arm licence can not be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement of licensee in a criminal case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Even otherwise the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case in which he was involved and hence there is no justification for the continuance of the cancellation of the petitioner's fire arm licence."
11. This court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow reported in 2017 LCD 2017 has held as under :-
"10. The said section has come up for judicial scrutiny in the case of C.P. Sahu Vs. State, 1984 AWC 145; Kailashnath Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1985 AWC 493; Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1988 AWC 14814; Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1995 ACJ 200 and as per the judicial provocation given, there on the following points:-
(a) the licensing authority has no power to suspend the arms licence pending enquiry into its cancellation/suspension nor has it the power to suspend the licence for indefinite period;
(b) licensing authority has the power to suspend for specified period a fire-arm licence on being satisfied as to existence of all or any of the conditions visualised by clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act sans any prior opportunity of hearing being given to the licence holder but such order of suspension shall not attain finality until the aggrieved party has been heard and his objections, if any, adjudicated. In other words, suspension of arms licence for specified period or its revocation under Section 17(3) of the Act, if ordered without affording opportunity of hearing, would endure in suspended animation until the aggrieved party has been heard by the licensing authority and his objections, if any, are adjudicated:
(c) the licensing authority can also for the furtherance of the immediate remedial actions, exercise in facts and circumstances of a given case, an incidental power of directing the licence holder to surrender his licence until objections have been decided ; and
(d) suspension under Section 17(3) of the Act must be for definite period to be specified in the order by the licensing authority.
11. Further, this Court in the case of Sahab Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra Region, Agara and others 2006 (24) LCD 374, in paragraph No. 3 held as under:-
"The submission of the petitioner is that merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. in support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in the case of Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P. . It has further been submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balaram Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. 1985 A.W.C. 493 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Ors., the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry."
12. From the perusal of the Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, the position which emerges out is that arms licence of a person can be cancelled, if licensing authority is satisfied that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for the public safety.
13. In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in [2013 (31) LCD 1460], this court propounded that "Public Peace" or "Public Safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order, but the public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only. Relevant paras 9, 10 and 11 of the said case read as under:
"9. Further, while passing the impugned order also the licensing authority has not given any adequate finding that if petitioner holds the arms license then the same shall be against the public peace or public safety.
"10. 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 and before passing of the order of cancellation of arm license as per 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 in view of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], wherein it has been held that license can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the registration of an F.I.R. and pending of a criminal case."
14. In the present case, no finding has been given that in what manner if the petitioner is allowed to keep his arms licence, the same is against a breach of public peace and public safety. Further as per settled law, mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that if the petitioner is allowed to keep his arms, then it shall be detrimental to public peace and tranquility cannot be a ground for cancellation of arms licence."
12. Full Bench of this court vide its decision rendered in the case of Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of U.P. 1984 (10) ALR 223 has categorically held that pendency of a criminal case is not a ground mentioned under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 as such fire arm licence cannot be cancelled on mere pendency of a criminal case.
13. This court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (31) LCD 1460 has considered the terms public peace and public safety and has held that public peace or public safety do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order but these terms will come into play only when public at large is affected.
14. In the case in hand, the proceedings for cancellation of firearm licence was initiated against the petitioner on the police report dated 24.7.2013, which stated that as the petitioner is involved in aforesaid two criminal cases, the firearm licence issued to him is liable to be cancelled. The Licensing Authority merely on the said report and the allegations contained in the First Information Report has concluded that the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner has criminal inclination. There is no other material on record to show that petitioner has been involved in criminal activities, which warranted immediate suspension/cancellation of his firearm licence. The appellate court has declined to interfere in the order of the Licensing Authority only on the ground that petitioner has not brought any material on record to show that he has been exonerated from the aforesaid criminal cases.
15. In view of the catena of judgments of this Court, it has now been held that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of firearm licence in exercise of power under Section 17(3) of the Act of 1959 and in the present case, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC in the criminal cases registered against him. In view of the aforesaid changed circumstances, it is desirable that the Licensing Authority should re-visit the matter and take a fresh decision after obtaining fresh report from the concerned departments.
16. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 1, dated 17.3.2017 and 6.7.2018, respectively, are set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to re-consider the cancellation of firearm licence of the petitioner, after taking into consideration the judgments, referred to above, and the exoneration of the petitioner from grave charges in the criminal trial, by passing an appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
November 21, 2025
Anil
