Allahabad High Court
Ranvijay Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home And Others on 12 September, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149587 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36646 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ranvijay Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Singh,Ch. N.A. Khan,Haridwar Singh,J.N. Mishra,S.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was granted license No. 982/PII for DBBL Gun (12 Bore) No.9854/03 in the year 2003. In the year 2008, a criminal case was registered under Section 302 IPC, in which, petitioner was not named. The aforementioned criminal case was proceeded and petitioner was implicated during investigation. On the basis of aforementioned criminal case u/s 302 IPC, a show cause notice dated 26.04.2008 was issued in the name of petitioner and on the basis of ex-parte order dated 26.12.2008, licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi, and the Commissioner, vide order dated 03.06.2009, dismissed the appeal, hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs :-
"I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 and 3.6.2009 passed by the respondent no.2 and 3 (Annexure-2 & 3) to this writ petition. II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to grant renewal of the License no.982/P II DBBL Gun No.12 No.9854/03 of the petitioner for DBBL Gun for which renewal fee has already been deposit through treasury challan. III) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. This Court vide order dated 24.7.2009 directed the Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit accordingly, affidavits are exchanged between the parties.
4. A supplementary affidavit, dated 13.12.2022, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner annexing the copy of the judgement of Criminal Court dated 1.12.2021 passed in S.T. No.272/2008, under Section 302/34 IPC, by which, the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforementioned criminal case.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was granted arms licence according to the procedure prescribed under the Arms Act and Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case, which is also illegal. He submitted that the aforementioned criminal case has been finally decided by the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. He further submitted that considering the evidence adduced in the criminal case as well as the final judgment passed by the court concerned it is fully demonstrated that the petitioner has not used his firearm in the aforementioned criminal case as such the ground for cancellation is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the statement recorded in the aforementioned criminal case as well as the final judgment passed in Criminal Case fully demonstrate that petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforementioned criminal case. He placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2002 (2) J.Cr.C. 32, Prem vs. State of Uttaranchal and another in support of his argument.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, submitted that the firearm license of the petitioner was rightly cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case under Section 302 IPC. He further submitted that mere acquittal in the aforementioned criminal case will not amount to restore the firearm licence of the petitioner. He further submitted that no interference is required against the impugned orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2021 0 Supreme (All) 840 Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors in support of his arguement.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. There is no dispute about the facts that the petitioner was granted firearm licence in the year 2003.There is also no dispute about the fact that under the order of Licensing Authority dated 26.12.2008, petitioner's arms licence has been cancelled and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed, vide order dated 03.06.2009. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Case vide judgement dated 1.12.2021.
9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 17 of the Arms Act will be relevant, which is as under :-
"17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.
(1)The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.
(2)The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.
(3)The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,-
(a)if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(b)if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or
(c)if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or
(d)if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e)if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.
(4)The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.
(5)Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.
(6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.
(7) A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence:Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void.
(8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.
(9)The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof.
(10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation."
10. A perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act would show that firearm could be suspended or revoked by the licencing authority on the ground that it was necessary for public peace or for the public safety and if any of the condition of the licence has been contravened.
11. Now it will be appropriate to refer to the law bearing on the matter.
12. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740, it was observed that the contravention of law always affects order but before it could be said to affect "public order" it must affect the community or the public at large. One has to imagine three concentric circles, the largest representing "law and order", the next representing "public orders" and the smallest representing "security of state". An act may affect "law and order" but not "public order", just as an act may affect "public order" but not "security of state".
13. In Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs. District Magistrate, Basti & Others reported in 1978 AWC 122, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court relaying upon the earlier decision in Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner Allahabad reported in 1972 AIR Allahabad 510 held that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and hence an order cancelling or revoking a firearm licence only on the ground of licensee's involvement in a criminal case cannot be sustained.
14. In the matter of Harprasad Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2005 (52) ACC 226 (Alld) this Court after considering the law already pronounced on this point has finally allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the appellate Authority. Relevant paragraph of this judgment are being quoted here :-
"In full Bench decision of this Court rendered in Channga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1984 (10) AIR 223 and Kailash Nath and Others Vs. Sate of U.P. and Others 1985 (22) ACC 353 and in the case of Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1985 (Supp) ACC 235, it has been held that mere pendency of the Criminal case(s) is no ground for cancellation of arms licence. The full Bench decision of Channga Prasad Sahu was also considered in Sadri Ram Vs. District Magistrate Azamgarh and Others 1998 (37) ACC 830".
15. In Vishal Varshney Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2009 (75) ALR 593, this Court held that cancellation of the firearm licence only on the ground of apprehension or likelihood of misuse of firearm by the licence is illegal.
16. In a recent decision which was cited by counsel for the petitioner in the case of Suneel Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2020 (113) ACC 1 and Ram Prasad Vs. Commissioner and Others reported in 2020 (113) 571, this Court held that mere involvement in criminal case is no ground for cancellation of licensee's firearm as well as apprehension of abuse of arms is not a sufficient ground for passing of an order of cancellation of licence under Section 17 of the Act. It has also been held that in a pending criminal case against the licence if acquittal has been ordered by criminal Court then the very basis of the cancellation of arm licence will vanish.
17. In Ashiq Hussain Vs. Commissioner, Moradabad & Others reported in 2009 (10) ADJ 635, this Court has held as under:
"6. The mere involvement in a solitary criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of a firearm license as held by this Court in case of Mohd. Haroon Vs. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar reported in 2003 (1) ACJ 124, unless and until it is shown on the basis of material on record that there was grave danger to public law and order. In the instant case it is only a solitary incident, which was not arising out of any disturbance of law and order, that has been made the basis for ordering cancellation."
18. The perusal of relevant portion of the judgement of Criminal Court will be necessary which is an under:-
न्यायालय अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश फास्ट ट्रैक कोर्ट-II, गाजीपुर।
उपस्थितः श्री दुर्गेश, (एच.जे.एस) (निर्णय का दिनांकः 01.12.2021) (सत्र परीक्षण संख्या 272/2008) सी.एन.आर.नं. यू.पी. जी.एच.-01-000630-2008 एवं (सत्र परीक्षण संख्या 162/2011) सी.एन.आर.नं. यू.पी. जी.एच.-01-001421-2011 (अपराध संख्या-12/2008, धारा- 302/34 भा०दंज०सं०, थाना-करण्डा, जनपद- गाजीपुर) परिवादी उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य प्रतिनिधित्व श्री अखिलेश कुमार सिंह, सहायक जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता (दाण्डिक) अभियुक्तगण
1. विशाल यादव पुत्र विनोद यादव,
2. बट्टन उर्फ रण विजय सिंह पुत्र स्व० महेन्द्र प्रताप सिंह, निवासीगण ग्राम करण्डा, थाना करण्डा, जनपद गाजीपुर।
घटना की तिथि 15.01.2008 से 17.01.2008 के मध्य प्रथम सूचना अंकित किये जाने की तिथि 17.01.2008 आरोप पत्र प्रेषित किये जाने की तिथि 02.04.2008 आरोप विरचित किये जाने की तिथि 05.08.2008 (अभियुक्त विशाल यादव) 30.01.2013 (अभियुक्त बट्टन उर्फ रण विजय सिंह) साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने की तिथि 29.08.2012 निर्णय की तिथि 01.12.2021 दण्डादेश की तिथि (यदि कोई हो) 01.12.2021
------------------------------------------------------------
च. जहाँ तक अन्य अभियुक्त बट्टन उर्फ रण विजय सिंह की भूमिका का प्रश्न है, उसके संबंध में पत्रावली पर ऐसा कोई निर्णायक साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है। पी.डब्लू. 2 श्री अमरनाथ दूबे एवं पीडब्लू. 5 श्रीमती सविता दूबे द्वारा अपने परिसाक्ष्य में यह अभिकथन किया गया है कि उसके पुत्र की दोस्ती बट्टन उर्फ रण विजय सिंह से नहीं थी। इसी प्रकार स्वयं विशाल यादव का भी अपने बयान अंतर्गत धारा 313 दं०प्र०सं० में यह अभिकथन है कि वह बट्टन सिंह को नहीं जानता था। पत्रावली पर अभियुक्त बट्टन उर्फ रण विजय सिंह के विरुद्ध प्रत्यक्ष अथवा अप्रत्यक्ष साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है। विवेचक द्वारा भी स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि किन साक्ष्यों के आधार पर उसके विरुद्ध आरोपत्र प्रेषित किया गया है।
----------------------------------------------------
आदेश
44. अभियुक्त बट्टन उर्फ रण विजय सिंह को भा०दं०सं० की धारा 302/34 के अंतर्गत लगाये गये आरोप से दोष-मुक्त किया जाता है। अभियुक्त जमानत पर है। उसके जमानत प्रपत्र निरस्त किये जाते हैं तथा प्रतिभूओं को उसके दायित्व से उन्मोचित किया जाता है। अभियुक्त एक सप्ताह के अन्दर दं०प्र०सं० की धारा 437ए का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित करे।
45. अभियुक्त विशाल यादव को भा०दं०सं० की धारा 302 के अंतर्गत लगाये गये आरोप से दोष-सिद्ध किया जाता है। अभियुक्त जमानत पर है। उसके जमानत प्रपत्र निरस्त किये जाते हैं तथा प्रतिभूओं को उसके दायित्व से उन्मोचित किया जाता है।
46. दोष-सिद्ध विशाल यादव को न्यायिक अभिरक्षा में लिया जाये। पत्रावली मध्यान्तर दण्ड के प्रश्न पर सुनवाई हेतु प्रस्तुत हो।
दिनांकित 01.12.2021 (दुर्गेश), जे.ओ.कोड यू.पी. 1626, अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश/ एफ.टी.सी.- II, गाजीपुर।
19. This Court has held from time to time that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel the firearm licence of the licence holder. In the instant matter, the Criminal Court has fully acquitted the petitioner in the aforementioned criminal case on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. The perusal of the judgment and evidence adduced in the criminal case fully demonstrate that there is no allegation of using the firearm by the petitioner as such the firearm licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case, in which, the criminal court has found that the allegation against the petitioner is not proved.
20. The caselaw cited by learned Counsel for the state shall not be applicable in the instant matter as the acquittal of petitioner in criminal case is honorable acquittal.
21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 26.12.2008 and 03.06.2009 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
22. Writ petition stands allowed and respondent no.2/District Magistrate, Ghazipur, is directed to restore the firearm licence of the petitioner after calling the necessary report from the authorities concerned within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
23. No order as to Costs.
Order Date :- 12.9.2024 m.a.