Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Rai @ Babloo Rai vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 February, 2023
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3366 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rajesh Rai @ Babloo Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Shahi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents.
Petitioner is facing a trial arising out of a Case Crime No. 515 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 352 and 336, therefore, proceeding was initiated to revoke his arms license and a show cause notice was issued to which a reply was filed thereafter. The Licensing Authority by an order 19.01.2019 revoked the arms license of petitioner on ground of his involvement in above referred criminal case and that it was necessary for the security of public peace and for public safety appeal thereof was also rejected.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that only on ground of pendency of a criminal case, arm license cannot be revoked. Petitioner has lodged an FIR against complainant of above referred FIR, therefore, criminal proceedings were initiated against him with mala fide intention. The arms license was issued to petitioner as there was a threat which still persisted as he is one of witness in a case lodged against other party, however, these circumstances were not considered and only on basis of apprehension of disturbance of public peace and public safety, the arms license was cancelled, and same error was done by Appellate Authority also.
The above submission are opposed by learned Standing Counsel, who supported the impugned order that since petitioner was involved in above referred criminal case and there was material before Licensing Authority to revoke arm license of petitioner for security of public peace and public safety.
This Court recently in the case of Mahipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others Writ - C No.1080 of 2023, decided on 14.02.2023 has an occasion to consider the similar submissions wherein the Court has referred its earlier judgment in the case of Indrajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021(10) ADJ 471, wherein it has been held that:
"16. The words "public peace and public order" are normally considered to maintain peace and order at public at large. However, there may be instances where though the immediate danger may be to an individual, but it may have threat to the public at large. For example a fire arm licensee entered inside the house of a neighbour and threatened him or undertook blank firing by licensed weapon or otherwise, though it may be itself be violative or not violative of conditions fire arm license, but this act is not only a threat to an individual, but is definitely likely to cause disturbance of public peace and public order to public at large, therefore, in these circumstances for security of public peace or for public order, the licensing authority may suspend or revoke the arms licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act, of 1959. Similarly, a person/licensee who is involved in a case of murder or attempt to murder or any offence affecting human body or any other serious offence, there may be likelihood of breach of public peace or public order.
17. The words used in Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959 is "deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety" i.e. in order to secure public peace or for public safety, the licensing authority if deems necessary, may suspend or revoke the licence. It is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may take place to revoke or suspend the arms licence. The licensing authority on the basis of material available, if deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety may revoke the arms licence. Therefore, at this stage subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority comes into picture and if the licensing authority finds that due to certain act whether it is affecting to an individual or public at large, may for the security of public peace or for public safety, may suspend or revoke the arms licence. This is a precautionary measure, therefore, it is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may occur. Therefore, even the criminal antecedent of the licensee are very important factor for consideration for granting license. In these circumstances, even pendency of a criminal case involving serious offence may be sufficient to suspend or revoke the arms licence. Similarly, even after the acquittal, the nature of acquittal may be an important factor to consider whether there may be a likelihood of disturbance of public peace and safety especially in cases where the offences are against the State, offence against public tranquillity, offences affecting human body, offences affecting life, and sexual offences etc.
18. The licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by this Court which is no way connected or does not have any inkling of situations. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licencing authority on the basis of situation then existing, except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material. (See Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1997 (34) ACC 499).
19. There must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licensee is not fit to continue holding of licence. If the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that a continued existence of fire arms licence with a person charged with various offence may endanger security of public peace and public safety then revocation of licence under Section 17 cannot be said to arbitrary or without jurisdiction. (See, 1999 SCC Online Pat 206, (1999) 3 PLJR 203, Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others)."
In the present case, an FIR was lodged against petitioner under aforesaid offences wherein after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and charges were framed and presently trial is pending, therefore, there is more than prima facie case against petitioner.
The contents of FIR also stated that he misused his licensed fire-arm and there is no material or document before this Court to contradict it. The petitioner has misused his licensed fire-arm and thus violated condition of arms license. Therefore, there was sufficient material before Licensing Authority that it was found deem necessary for security of public peace and public safety to revoke the arms license.
Since the subjective satisfaction was based on material, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023 P. Pandey