Abdul Rehman vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Heard Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Teerath Raj Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

By means of present writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 11.7.2006 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 26.9.2006 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-9 and 7 respectively) whereby and wherein the DBBL gun of the petitioner bearing licence no. 4880 has been cancelled and thereafter the appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s 17(3) of the Arms Act too has been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that the petitioner was found involved in a criminal case i.e. Case Crime No. 383 of 2005 u/s 147, 148, 149, 504, 307, 302 IPC

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on mere involvement of a person in a criminal case, the arm licence can not be cancelled and that he also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 28.7.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 60838 of 2006 Issa Vs. State of U.P. The said judgment in writ petition no. 60838 of 2006 also takes into consideration the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate Basti and others, XVI 1979 ACC 6 (Sum) wherein the said Division Bench has placed reliance upon an earlier decision of this Court in Mast Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573 wherein it has been held that on mere involvement in a criminal case, the arm licence can not be cancelled or revoked. The said decision of 2006 also takes into consideration the full bench decision of this Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of U.P., 1984 (10) ALR 223 and other judgments.

In view of the aforesaid facts and legal position that the fire arm licence can not be cancelled, the impugned orders can not be sustained and are liable to be set-aside.

Moreover during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of the judgment dated 16.6.2011 annexing therewith a certified copy of the judgement given in S.T. no. 232 of 2006, from a perusal whereof it reveals that the said criminal case has resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. The aforesaid position is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel.

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment dated 28.7.2011 passed in writ petition no. 60838 of 2006 and following the law laid down therein, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.7.2006 and 26.9.2006 are hereby quashed.

Respondent no. 3 is directed to consider afresh, case of renewal of the petitioner''s gun licence in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.