Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikramsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 31st OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 6273 of 2022
Between:-
VIKRAMSINGH S/O BHUWANSINGH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE GRAM CHHAPRI, TEHSIL ALOT,
DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR SP RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. THR SHO P.S. ALOT DIST RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. STATE OF M.P. THR COMMISSIONER UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
With consent finally heard.
B y this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by
respondent No.4, affirming the order dated 10.07.2022 passed by respondent
No.1 whereby his application for renewal of Arms License No.4/A/82 has been
rejected on the ground that a Criminal Case vide Crime No.378/2010 was
registered against him.
02. As per the petitioner, he holds the arms license as aforesaid which was
Signature Not Verified
renewed in 2017 and was valid up to 31.03.2020. Prior to expiry of the license
SAN
Digitally signed by JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Date: 2022.04.05 14:16:07 IST period, he made an application before respondent No.1 for renewal of the license.
By order dated 10.07.2020, the said application was rejected on the ground that an
offence was registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.378/2010 at Police
Station Alot, District Ratlam under Sections 307, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and 25 of Arms Act. The said order has been affirmed in appeal.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid case the
petitioner has been acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide judgment dated
18.11.2011. The fact of acquittal of the petitioner that too way back in the year
2011 has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. The
petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has been holding the
arms license without causing any disturbance to the public peace hence the
impugned order is illegal.
0 4 . Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the impugned
order is perfectly just and legal. Since a case was registered against the petitioner
under various sections of the IPC, respondent No.1 was justified in refusing to
renew the arms license. It is however not disputed by him that petitioner has been
acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case on 18.11.2011.
05. The petitioner was granted the arms license in the year 1985. Thereafter
the same was renewed inhis favour in 2017 i.e. subsequent to the date of his
acquittal in the criminal case by judgment dated 18.11.2011 meaning thereby that
the fact of registration of the criminal case against the petitioner was already taken
into consideration at the time of renewal of the arms license in his favour. Rejection
of application of petitioner for renewal of that license only on the ground of
registration of that very criminal case against him is hence apparently unjustified.
Moreover from the impugned order it is clear that only the fact of registration of
the criminal case has been taken into consideration and not the fact of acquittal of
the petitioner therein. The impugned order hence cannot be sustained.
06. As a result, the impugned order dated 28.01.2022 passed by respondent
No.4/The Commissioner, Ujjain and the order dated 10.07.2020 passed by
respondent No.1 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District
Signature Not Verified
Magistrate, Ratlam, respondent No.1 to consider the application of the petitioner
SAN
Digitally signed by JYOTI
for renewal of his arms license afresh by taking into consideration the fact of his
CHOURASIA
Date: 2022.04.05 14:16:07 IST
acquittal in the criminal case on 18.11.2011 itself and taking note of the fact of
renewal of license subsequent to such registration and acquittal. The respondent
No.1 shall also take into consideration the decision of this Court in the matter of
Badshah @ Taj Mohammad Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2007
(4) M.P.L.J. 527.
07. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands allowed and
disposed off. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits of the case.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyot/v
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Date: 2022.04.05 14:16:07 IST
