Allahabad High Court

Amit Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 October, 2025

Author: Arun Kumar

Bench: Arun Kumar





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
Reserved
 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT - C No. - 22995 of 2025
 

 
Amit Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh
 

 

 
..Petitioner(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State of U.P. and 3 others
 

 

 
..Respondent(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
 
:
 
Omar Zamin, Santosh Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
C.S.C.
 

 

 

 
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Omar Zamin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Dharmendra Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.05.2025, passed by the respondent no.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar (hereinafter referred to as Licencing Authority), whereby petitioners arms licence has been cancelled.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was granted arms licence No.323/TGS dated 17.05.2022 NPB 12 Bore No.49572 and licence No.287/TGS dated 18.06.2021 NPB Revoler 32 Bore No.7636 by the Licencing Authority. On the basis of show cause notice dated 08.11.2022 aforementioned arms licence of the petitioner was cancelled by Licencing Authority vide order dated 22.12.2022. Petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 22.12.2022 by Writ-C No.3849 of 2023 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.02.2023, setting aside the cancellation order dated 22.12.2022 and direction was issued to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner as well as afford opportunity of hearing to petitioner before passing final order in the matter, however, the petitioner's arms licence was ordered to be suspended for the period of six weeks. In compliance of order of this Court dated 21.02.2023, a fresh show cause notice dated 17.03.2023 was issued to petitioner as to why the arms licence be not cancelled. Petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 03.04.2023 stating specifically in paragraph No.3, 4 and 5 that petitioner has already been acquitted of all charges by competent court in four cases, final report has been submitted in one case and one remaining case which is a cross case under 7 years is pending investigation as such in view of the provision contained under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. The Licencing Authority vide order dated 05.07.2023 cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Licencing Authority dated 05.07.2023, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.24565 of 2023. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2024, directing the Licencing Authority to restore the arms licence of the petitioner within a period of six weeks after getting necessary reports from the authorities, in accordance with law. The Court while allowing aforesaid writ petition observed as under in paragraph no.19 to 22:-

19. It is also material to mention that petitioner is practicing advocate of this Court for the last so many years. So far as six criminal cases mentioned in the show cause notice, petitioner has been acquitted in four cases, in one case final report has been submitted and in remaining one case which is a cross case below 7 years punishment as such the arms licence of the petitioner can not be cancelled on the ground of pendency of one criminal case as held by this Court from time to time.

20.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provision contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act and the ratio of law laid down by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted above, the impugned order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the District Magistrate cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside.

21. Writ petition stands allowed. Respondent no.4, District Magistrate, Sidhartha Nagar is directed to restore the arms licence of the petitioner within a period of six weeks after getting the necessary report from the authorities in accordance with law.

5. Pursuant to the direction of the Court contained in the judgment and order dated 26.11.2024, passed in Writ-C No.24565 of 2023, the Licencing Authority has again passed a fresh order dated 07.05.2025, cancelling arms licence of the petitioner, which is under challenge in this petition.

6. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 18.07.2025, passed in the present petition, separate counter affidavits on behalf of respondent no.2 & 4 and respondent no.3 have been filed. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit against the aforesaid counter affidavits.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the earlier order of this Court dated 26.11.2024 a positive direction was issued to the Licencing Authority to restore arms licence of the petitioner within a period of six weeks. However, the Licencing Authority has again cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner on the same ground of pendency of criminal case and opening of history sheet against him. The six criminal cases, which were the basis of earlier cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner, have again been taken into consideration. He has placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court in order to demonstrate that mere pendency of criminal case is not a ground for suspension or cancellation of arms licence. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in five cases out of six criminal cases, except one, which is a cross case arising out of family dispute.

8. To the objection raised by learned Additional Advocate General on the question of alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, it has been contended that alternative remedy of appeal is not an absolute bar to challenge the order impugned before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, [1998 (8) Supreme 176]. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the order passed in earlier petition i.e. Writ-C No.24565 of 2023 in which similar objection was raised and rejected.

9. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has submitted that Licencing Authority has passed the order impugned on the basis of report of Police Commissioner, Prayagraj and Station House Officer, Shivkuti, Prayagraj. He has laid great stress on the observation made in the order of the Licencing Authority that a history sheet has been opened in Police Station Shivkuti, Prayagraj in the name of petitioner and peoples of the said locality are terrified because of him. He has further submitted that one case is still pending against the petitioner, as such, no interference is required in the order of cancellation of arms licence.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the records.

11. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was granted arms licence in the year 2021, which was first cancelled by the Licencing Authority vide order dated 22.12.2022. On the said order having been set aside and relegated back, for fresh decision, the Licencing Authority has again cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner vide order dated 05.07.2023, which was also set aside by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 in Writ-C No.24565 of 2023.

12. As the parties have exchanged their affidavits, it will not be proper to relegate the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal. As such, the matter is being decided on merits itself, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra).

13. The main ground for cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner in the impugned order are pendency of criminal case against him, opening of history sheet in Police Station Shivkuti, Prayagraj and existence of fear of the petitioner, in the minds of the peoples of the locality.

14. So far as six criminal cases mentioned in the impugned order are concerned, the petitioner has been acquitted in five cases and the other one pending case is a cross case arising out of family dispute in which maximum punishment is less than seven years. Pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of arms licence has been considered and decided in various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court. This Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. State of U.P. [2010 (5) ADJ 594] has observed 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.

15. Similarly, in the case of Mukesh Kumar Yadav vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow [2017 (35) LCD 2017], it has been observed 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, Agra 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.

16. In view of the settled legal proposition and the case laws, referred above, as well as the provisions contained under the Act of 1959, it is evident that the petitioners arms licence could not have been cancelled by the Licencing Authority on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him.

17. From the perusal of Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, the proposition which emerges from it, is that arms licence of a person can be cancelled if Licencing Authority is satisfied that it was necessary for the security of the public itself or for the public safety.

18. In Thakur Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others [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.

19. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, the Licencing Authority has not recorded any finding as to what was the nature of fear in the minds of people or the action of petitioner which had created fear in the minds of people of the area under Police Station Shivkuti, Prayagraj.

20. Learned Additional Advocate General is also unable to show that a person in whose name a history sheet has been opened in police station is not entitled for arms licence. The finding of the Licencing Authority that issuance of arms licence was not in the interest of public peace and safety, is not based on any evidence on record, except the police report which is showing pendency of criminal cases. On mere apprehension expressed in the impugned order that the petitioner would misuse the arms and extend threat to the persons of society, the arms licence could not be cancelled.

21. Thus, in view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the settled position of law, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Licencing Authority cancelling arms licence of the petitioner by the order impugned deserves to be quashed.

22. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order impugned dated 07.05.2025, passed by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Case No.115 of 2025 under Section 17(3) of the Act of 1959 is hereby quashed. Respondent no.3 is directed to restore arms licence of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

23. It is needless to say that the Licencing Authority shall not cancel the arms licence of the petitioner on any of the grounds mentioned in the order impugned dated 07.05.2025, however, if any fresh report is received against the petitioner from the competent authority, respondent no.3 is free to proceed in accordance with law.