Saeed Mohammad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11117 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Saeed Mohammad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 26 September, 2025

Author: Prakash Padia

Bench: Prakash Padia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:174610
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - C No. - 16506 of 2022   
 
   Saeed Mohammad    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Ram Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 6
 
   
 
 
 
      
 
 Reserved on:-29.08.2025 
 
 Delivered on:-26.09.2025   
 
  
 
  
 
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.       

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The firearm license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mathura vide order 30.07.2019 passed in Case No.00665/2019 on the ground that a criminal case being Case Crime No.116 of 2019 under Section- 30 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 was registered against the petitioner. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal being Appeal No.01605 of 2019 before the respondent No.2/Divisional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra which was also dismissed by him on the same ground vide order dated 25.4.2022. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties. 4. In the counter affidavit, the basic ground taken against the petitioner is that due to pendency of the aforesaid criminal case, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel that orders impugned are just and valid and does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. In paragraph no.6 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has been discharged from the Case Crime No.116 of 2019 by the court below vide order dated 21.12.2022, copy of the aforesaid judgment is annexed as Annexure No. R.A.-1 to the rejoinder affidavit.

6. It is further argued that there is no material on record to show that armed license granted to the petitioner has been misused or there is any danger to public safety except the allegations that criminal case is pending against the petitioner. It is further argued that license can only be cancelled only to reasons assigned to Section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959.

7. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in following judgements :-

A. Ram Murti Madhukar vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD-905],

B. Ram Karpal Singh vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Ors. [2006 (24) LCD 114] C Jay Bhagwan Kanodia Vs. The Commissioner and another Writ C No.3439 of 2011 decided on 26.07.2012

D. Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner and Ors. (Writ-C No. 56378 of 2006) decided on 07.02.2020

E. Suresh Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (2) ADJ 158 and 2022 SCC Online All 2023.

F. Amar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 48730 of 2015) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 2049.

8. In the aforesaid judgements, it has been held by this Court that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 of the Act.

9. Per contra learned Standing Counsel submits that since the a criminal case is registered against the petitioner, public peace and safety are in danger, therefore, the order has rightly been passed cancelling the fire arms license of the petitioner.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. This Court in the case of Jay Bhagwan Kanodia Vs. The Commissioner and another decided on 26.07.2012 and Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 28.03.2019 has held that fire arms licence can only be cancelled if it falls within sub Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act.

12. The provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act provides various conditions for variation/cancellation or suspension of the arms licence, which is reproduced as under:- "17.Variation, suspension and revocation of licences- 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."

13. In the case of the Suresh Singh Yadav (supra) and Amar Singh (supra), this Court has specifically held that mere pendency of criminal cases or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for suspension or cancellation of firearm licence under Section 17 of the Act. The same view was also taken by the different Benches of this Court in the case of Ram Murti Madhukar (supra), Ram Karpal Singh (supra) and Ram Prasad (supra).

14. A licence may be cancelled, inter alia on the ground that it is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety' to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licensee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety. There should be something more than mere enmity. There should be some evidence of the provocative utterances of the licensee or of his suspicious movements or of his criminal designs and conspiracy in reinforcement of the evidence of enmity. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of facts and circumstances from which an inference of threat to public security or public peace may be deduced. The District Magistrate will have to take a decision on the facts of each case. But in the instant case there 'is nothing in his order to indicate that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Mere enmity is not sufficient.

16. The District Magistrate, Mathura did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 17 at all. His order gives an impression of having been made in a mechanical manner. The cancellation of a licence destroys a valuable privilege of a free citizen of a free country. The District Magistrate ought to fairly consider the facts and circumstances of each case and should also bear in mind the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms that the law does not give them a free hand. 17. Insofar as the present case, is concerned, from perusal of the record, it transpires that due to pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, firearm license has been cancelled and now the situation has been changed as the petitioner has been discharged by the Trial Court in the aforesaid criminal case, in view of the above, Court is of the opinion that the ground of cancellation does not survive. 18. In this view of the matter, the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.2/Divisional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mathura are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside. 19. The petition is allowed. 20. The District Magistrate, Mathura/respondent no.3 is directed to pass fresh order in the matter taking into consideration observations made herein above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

September 26, 2025

S.K.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

September 26, 2025

S.K.