Devendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Heard Shri Vijay Singh Sengar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.2.2011 whereby his application for grant of fresh arm licence has been refused and the appellate order dated 1.6.2011 whereby his appeal has been dismissed.

A persual of the impugned order would demonstrate that the grant of licence has been refused to the petitioner solely on the ground that his father namely, Ram Swaroop and his brother Rajendra Dwivedi are involved in case crime No. 301 of 1993, u/s 302 IPC and since they are members of jointly family there is always a possibility of misuse of arm.

The only contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to a judgment dated 6.12.1996 rendered in ST No. 270 of 1995, State v. Ram Swaroop, his father namely, Ram Swaroop and his brother Rajendra Dwivedi have been acquitted from the charges u/s 302/34 IPC and, therefore, the very ground for refusal of the arm licence has now become non-existent. Copy of judgment dated 6.12.1996 is on record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

Learned standing counsel submits that on the facts of the present case the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to approach the Licencing Authority and to apprise him of the materials in support of his case.

This Court by an order dated 16.12.2011 had called upon the petitioner to apprise as to whether against the aforesaid order of acquittal dated 6.12.1996 any appeal or revision has been preferred or not and accordingly, to file an affidavit in support thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 31.12.2011 and in paragraph 4 thereof he has stated that against the said order of acquittal dated 6.12.1996 the complainant has not filed any appeal or revision before this Court or any other Court. Thus, the order of acquittal has attained finality.

After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that as the very ground of refusal i.e. pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the father and brother having become nonexistent in view of the order of acquital dated 6.12.1996, the matter requires fresh consideration by the licencing authority.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider afresh the issue of grant of firearm licence to the petitioner in the light of the observations made above, and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.