Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044616
CWP-26340-2022 -1- 2024:PHHC:044616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(210)
CWP-26340-2022
Date of decision:- 03.04.2024
Ranjit Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. N.K.Verma, Advocate and
Mr. Ankush Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Chaudhry, DAG, Punjab.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has approached this Court
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated
25.08.2020, Annexures P-6 as well as Appellate order dated 27.07.2022,
Annexure P-10 passed by the respondent-authorities, whereby license
issued to him under the Arms Act, 1959 (for short "the Act") has been
cancelled and the appeal has been dismissed. He has also sought a writ in
the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to issue an Arms
License to him.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that two grounds on the basis
of which the license has been cancelled no longer survive. He submits that
the petitioner was named as an accused in FIR No.32 dated 12.04.2017
lodged for offence under Sections 325, 323, 201 and 34, IPC at Police
Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib and he has been given a clean
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044616
CWP-26340-2022 -2- 2024:PHHC:044616
acquittal by judgment dated 04.08.2022, which has been passed after the
appeal was dismissed vide order, Annexure P-10. He submits that the
second ground for rejection was that the petitioner had failed to clear the
dope test. By making a reference to the laboratory report dated 21.09.2022,
Annexure P-8, counsel asserts that the report is now "Negative".
3. Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by the respondents
by filing a short reply, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner was
named as an accused in two criminal cases. It has been admitted that he has
been acquitted in both the cases after trial. It has been further submitted that
after the expiry of the firearms license, the petitioner had deposited the
firearms with the concerned police official in February, 2020 and there is
no specific threat or apprehension to his life. State counsel has supported
the order passed taken by the respondent-authorities.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. It could not be disputed that the petitioner has been acquitted in
the criminal cases in which he was named as an accused. One of the
judgments in the criminal case has been passed after the decision of the
appeal filed under Section 17 of the Act. Furthermore, perusal of the
laboratory report shows that the petitioner has cleared the dope test.
Keeping in view the above factors, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the subsequent developments have a material bearing on the facts,
which are required to be examined at the hands of the Appellate Authority.
Impugned appellate order, Annexure P-10, therefore, deserves to be set
aside and the matter deserves to be sent back to respondent No.2 to decide
it afresh.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044616
CWP-26340-2022 -3- 2024:PHHC:044616
6. Consequently, impugned appellate order, Annexure P-10, is
quashed. Matter is remitted to respondent No.2 (Commissioner, Patiala
Division, Patiala) to re-decide it in the light of the above-noticed
subsequent developments, after hearing the counsel for the parties.
7. Writ petition is disposed of.
8. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No.2 on
18.06.2024 at 10:00 A.M.
03.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
