Lalit Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy.Food & ... on 3 February, 2020

[Cites 14, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

Lalit Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy.Food & ... on 3 February, 2020

Bench: Alok Mathur





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4956 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Shukla
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy.Food & Civil Supplies Up & Anr
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Sanjay Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

(C.M. Delay Condonation Application No. 55131 of 2019) Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the recall application for recall of the order dated 25.10.2018.

Cause shown for condoning the delay in filing recall application is deemed to be sufficient.

Delay condonation application is allowed.

Delay in filing the recall application is condoned.

Order Date :- 3.2.2020 Aditya Court No. - 26 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4956 of 2015 Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy.Food & Civil Supplies Up & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

(C.M. Recall Application 55132 of 2019) Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

This application has been filed for recall of order dated 25.10.2018 whereby the petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

Cause shown for recall of order dated 25.10.2018 is deemed to be sufficient.

Application is allowed.

Order dated 25.10.2018 is recalled.

The petition is restored to its original number.

1. Heard Sri M.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow dated 20.1.2015, whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and further upheld the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 25.9.2008, cancelling the license of the petitioner under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for license of the fire arm, which was granted to him on 21.3.1997. The petitioner had received a show-cause notice from the District Magistrate, Unnao on 8.2.2008 which indicated that there were eight criminal matters registered against the petitioner and he concluded that the petitioner is a person of criminal nature and, therefore, it is not in public interest that he should retain arm license and, therefore, he proposed to cancel the arm license.

4. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said notice wherein he stated that all the F.I.Rs. were based on false and frivolous allegations and that he never misused his weapon and, therefore, there is no ground for the District Magistrate to cancel the arm license of the petitioner.

5. Considering the aforesaid reply, the District Magistrate by means of an order dated 25.9.2008, cancelled the arm license of the petitioner. In the said order, he has recorded that the following criminal cases are pending against the petitioner:-

Þ1- eq0v0la0 220@88 /kkjk 147@323@336 IPC Jh dq'k dqekj iq= jkepUnz ;kno fu0 [kjsguk Fkkuk eksguykyxat n~okjk iathd`r djk;k x;k ftldh foospuk m0fu0 Jh0 vkj0,0 izlkn n~okjk dh x;hA fn0 16@7@88 dks vkjksii= la[;k 146@88 cuke yfyr dqekj vkfn 9 uQj ds fo#) ek0 U;k;ky; izsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA 2- eq0v0la0 138@91 /kkjk 342@323@504@506 IPC o /kkjk 3 ,llh@,lVh ,DV Jh jEek iq= gksjhyky jSnkl fu0 eÅ n~okjk iathd`r djk;k x;kA ftldh foospuk m0fu0 Jh f'kolsod flag pkSgku n~okjk dh x;hA fn0 31@7@19 dks vkjksii= la[;k 97@91 cuke yfyr vkfn 4 uQj vfHk;qDrksa ds fo#) ek0 U;k;ky; izsf"kr dh x;hA 3- eq0v0la0 155@91 /kkjk 307 IPC jkT; n~okjk Jh Qrsg cgknqj flag] o0m0fu0 Fkkuk eksguykyxat n~okjk iathd`r djk;k x;kA ftldh foospuk m0fu0 Jh f'kolsod flag pkSgku n~okjk dh x;hA fn0 10@9@91 dks vkjksii= la[;k 155@91 cuke yfyr dqekj vkfn 2 uQj vfHk;qDrksa ds fo#) ek0 U;k;ky; izsf"kr fd;k x;k ftlesa ek0 U;k;ky; ADJ XII n~okjk fn0 26@2@98 dks nks"keqDr fd;k x;kA 4- eq0v0la0 156@91 /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV jkT; n~okjk Jh Qrsg cgknqj flag] o0m0fu0 Fkkuk eksguykyxat n~okjk iathd`r djk;k x;kA ftldh foospuk m0fu0 Jh f'kolsod flag pkSgku n~okjk dh x;hA fn0 10@9@91 dks vkjksii= la[;k 159@91 cuke yfyr dqekj ds fo#) ek0 U;k;ky; izsf"kr fd;k x;k ftlesa ek0 U;k;ky; ADJ XII n~okjk fn0 26@2@98 dks fjgk fd;k x;kA 5- eq0v0la0 161@91 /kkjk 3¼2½ m0iz0 xq.Mk fu;a=.k vf/k0 jkT; n~okjk Jh lkscju flag] iz0fu0 Fkkuk eksguykyxat n~okjk cuke yfyr dqekj ds fo#) fjiksVZ pkykuh fn0 16@7@91 dks U;k;ky; izsf"kr dh x;h ftlesa fn0 26@4@93 dks U;k;ky; Jheku vij ftyk eftLVsªV n~okjk uksfVl okil vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksi izekf.kr ugha gqvkA 6- eq0v0la0 365@05 /kkjk 147@323@504@506 IPC Jh iznhi n~foosnh iq= jkeizlkn n~foosnh xzke iz/kku xksfoUniqj fu0 Hkhyeiqj Fkkuk eksguykyxat n~okjk vfHk;ksx iathd`r djk;k x;kA ftldh foospuk m0fu0 Jh d`".kiky flag n~okjk dh x;hA fn0 12@1@06 dks vkjksii= la[;k 7@2006 cuke yfyr dqekj vkfn 8 uQj ds fo#) ek0 U;k;ky; izsf"kr fd;k x;kA orZeku esa ek0 U;k;ky; ds ACJM III ds ;gka fopkjk/khu gS ftlesa vxyh rkjh[k is'kh 8@9@19 gSA 7- eq0v0la0 413@96 /kkjk 3 m0iz0 xq.Mk fu;a=.k vf/k0 jkT; n~okjk izHkkjh fujh{kd Fkkuk eksguykyxat n~okjk cuke yfyr dqekj ds fo#) fjiksVZ pkykuh fn0 25@7@96 dks U;k;ky; izsf"kr dh x;h ftlesa fn0 25@3@98 dks U;k;ky; Jheku vij ftyk eftLVsªV n~okjk uksfVl okil vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksi izekf.kr ugha gqvkA 8- eq0v0la0 134@07 /kkjk 3@4 m0iz0 xq.Mk fu;a=.k vf/k0 jkT; n~okjk izHkkjh fujh{kd Fkkuk eksguykyxat n~okjk cuke yfyr dqekj ds fo#) fjiksVZ pkykuh fn0 26@4@07 dks U;k;ky; izsf"kr dh x;h ftlesa fn0 21@5@08 dks U;k;ky; Jheku vij ftyk eftLVsªV n~okjk uksfVl okil vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksi izekf.kr ugha gqvkAß

6. After giving the details of the criminal cases pending against the petitioner the District Magistrate has recorded that some of them are of serious nature, which indicates the criminal nature of the petitioner. The criminal cases pending against the petitioner include matters under the Goonda Control Act and SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act and the petitioner is named in the said F.I.Rs., therefore, to maintain public peace and public safety the license of the petitioner deserves to be cancelled.

7. The Commissioner, Lucknow while considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also recorded that eight criminal cases are pending against the petitioner which are serious in nature and has held that the District Magistrate has considered all the facts of the case including the submission made by the petitioner and there is no infirmity in the same and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal.

8. The petitioner has submitted that all the following eights cases, which are registered against him are based on false facts, and have been registered only due to enmity.

(i) In Case Crime No. 220/1988, under Sections 147/323/336 I.P.C., the petitioner has already been exonerated as recorded by the District Magistrate in the impugned order.

(ii) In Case Crime No. 138/1991, under Sections 342/323/504/506 I.P.C. as well as three SC/ST Act, a charge-sheet has been filed on 21.7.2019 and the matter is still pending consideration before the court of competent jurisdiction.

(iii) In Case Crime No. 155/1991, under Section 307 I.P.C., the petitioner has been acquitted by means of judgment dated 26.2.1998.

(iv) In Case Crime No. 156/1991, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, the petitioner has been acquitted by means of judgment dated 26.2.1998.of

(v) In Case Crime No. 161/1991, under Section 9 (2) of the U.P. Gunda Adhiniyam, where the petitioner has been acquitted by the Court by means of judgment dated 26.4.1993.

(vi) In Case Crime No. 365/2005, under Sections 147/323/504/506 I.P.C., the petitioner is placing prosecution in the court of competent jurisdiction and a charge-sheet has been filed 12.1.2006.

(vii) In Case Crime No. 413/1996, under Sections 3/4 of the U.P. Prevention of Gunda Act, where the prosecution has not been approved against the petitioner vide order dated 25.3.1998.

(viii) In Case Crime No. 134/2007, under Section 3/5 of U.P. Gunda Act, the prosecution has not been sanctioned by means of the order dated 25.5.2008 and the petitioner has not been prosecuted.

9. Therefore, from perusal of the aforesaid list of cases, there are only two cases where the criminal prosecution is pending against the petitioner while in all the remaining cases either the prosecution has not been sanctioned or the petitioner has been acquitted. All these facts were not properly considered by the District Magistrate or by the Commissioner leading to cancellation of the arm license of the petitioner.

10. While interpreting provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act, this Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in [(2017) (3) JIC 254 (AII) (LB)] held as under:-

"19. In the present case, no finding has been given that in what manner if the petitioner is allowed to keep his arms licence, the same is against a breach of public peace and public safety. Further as per settled law, mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that involvement in such criminal case shall be detrimental to public peace and tranquility shall not create a ground for cancellation of arms licence.

20. Thus, in view of the above said facts, the impugned orders dated 04.12.2014 and 07.10.2015 passed by the opposite party nos.3 and 2 respectively are liable to be set aside."

11. Similarly in the case of Utlesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2015) (1) JIC 339 (AII) (LB) ] held as under:

"11. It has been the consistent view of this Court that merely lodging of the criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel the firearm license. There has to be reason for the competent authority to come to conclusion that petitioner has misused his firearm and there is strong apprehension of breach of peace."

12. District Magistrate while passing the order of cancellation has only recorded that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and reached the conclusion that the petitioner is a person of criminal nature and it is not in the interest of public safety or public peace that arm license should stand in his name. The District Magistrate while coming to this finding failed to appreciate the fact that in six matters where the first information report was lodged against the petitioner, the prosecution has not been successful against him and he has already been acquitted or the prosecution has never been sanctioned. It is only in two matter where the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. He has further not considered the aforesaid facts in totality and, therefore, no reasons have been indicated in the impugned order for arriving at the conclusion that in the interest of public peace or public safety it is necessary to cancel the arm license of the petitioner.

13. The Commissioner has also in its appellate order not considered the facts that the petitioner has been exonerated in six cases out of eight cases and in remaining two cases the prosecution is underway. It was necessary for the competent authority to pass an order under Section 17 (3) for cancellation of the arm license after considering the facts of the case but in the present case relevant facts have not been considered by the authorities, therefore, the orders as such are stands vitiated. It was necessary for the Competent Authority to record his satisfaction with regard to the fact that if the arm license remains in the name of the petitioner then there is a likelihood on breach of public peace and public safety but such conclusion has to be arrived on the basis of material and this material has to be duly considered by the authority before recording its satisfaction.

14. In the absence of any such consideration in the impugned order, I am of the considered view that both the orders dated 25.9.2008 passed by the District Magistrate and order dated 20.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner are liable to be set aside.

15. It shall be open for the District Magistrate to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

16. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 3.2.2020 Aditya (Alok Mathur, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court