Allahabad High Court
Hausala Prasad Tiwari S/O Sri Ram Naresh ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 7 December, 2004
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record,
2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned judgment/order dated 31,1.2000 passed by the Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad in Appeal No. 11 of 2000 filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act against the judgment/order dated 3.1.2000 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Allahabad in Case No. 35 of 2000 under Section 17 of the Arms Act
3. The petitioner was initially a resident of Village Nivi Khurd P.S. Karchhana District Allahabad. An application dated 2.11.1985 was moved by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karchhana praying that Sangam Lal S/o Ram Bahadur R/o Village Nivi Khurd P.S. karchhana District Allahabad had illegally taken possession over the Chak road, On the aforesaid application order dated 2,11.1985 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karchhana directing the Lekhpal concerned to look into the matter. It is alleged that in the aforesaid village there is a group of Sangam Lal, Devi Prasad, Gajraj S/o Ram Bahadur and Udit Narain S/o Dev Raj who are influential persons and due to the dispute of Chak road, they bore enmity with him. It is further alleged that they had beaten the petitioner and his wife regarding Which an F.I.R. dated 29.3.1987 was lodged at P.S. Karchhana against the aforesaid persons under Sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. It is further alleged that on 18.11.1987 at about 4.00 P.M. Bhagwati Prasad, Laxmi Narain alias Jhallar S/o Ram Kishore, Akshai Nath alias Ayodhya Prasad, Dharam Narain alias Dhurendhar S/o' Bhagwati Prasad all, R/o Village Nivi Khurd PS. Karchhana District Allahabad came at the doors of the petitioner armed with guns and pistols ,and assaulted him with intention to kill him. The petitioner lodged another F.I.R. at P.S. Karchhana which was registered as Case Crime No. 204/87 under Sections 307/504 I.P.C. against the aforesaid persons. It is submitted that as a counter blast Case Crime No. 205/88 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 307/504/427 I.P.C. besides Case Crime No. 181/90 under Sections 379/411 I.P.C. with mala fide intention. .
4. It is further alleged that due to enmity and constant danger of life the petitioner and his brother left Village Nivi Khurd with family in the year 1990 and settled themselves in Village Kanchanawa P.S. Kaundhiyara District Allahabad after selling out their ancestral property in Village Nivi Khurd. Village Kanchanawa is about 15 Km away from Village Nivi Khurd. He received a show cause notice dated' 8.7.1999 as to why his gun licence be not cancelled as he had concealed the name of his earlier village Nivi Khurd from where he migrated to Village Kanehanawa and also the pendency of Case Crime Nos. 205/88; 180/90 and 181/90. The petitioner submitted an objection supported by an affidavit and documentary evidence before the Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad along with another affidavit filed, by Akshaivat Nath Pandey S/o Bhagwati Prasad R/o Village Nivi Khurd P.S. Karchhana. It is stated that the aforesaid person had not submitted any application before any authority that he had any danger to his life from the petitioner.
5. It appears that the aforesaid show cause notice was issued on a complaint made by Akshaivat Nath Pandey. It further appears that the S.H.O. P.S. Kaundhiyara reported that the petitioner Was not a permanent resident of village Kanehanawa. On the basis of this report of he S.H.O. the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Allahabad passed the judgment and order dated 3.1.2000 in Case Crime No. 35/2000 under Section 17 of the Indian Arms Act cancelling the gun licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Appeal No, 11 of 2000 which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad vide order dated 31.1.2000 as under: -
U;k;ky; vk;qDr] bykgkckn e.My] bykgkckn vkñlañ 11 lu~ 2000 vUrxZr /kkjk 18 vkElZ ,sDV gkslyk izlkn frokjh cuke ljdkj Fkkuk dksf/k;kjk bykgkckn A udy vkns'k fnukad 31-01-2000 vihydrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk U;k;y; ds fookfnr vksn'k dk voyksdu fd;k A l{ke U;k;y; }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr rFkk rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fof/kd vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa izFke n`"V;k dksbZ vfu;ferrk izrhr ugha gksrh gs A vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa gLrk{ksi dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gS vr% vihy xzg~; ;ksX; ugha gS A ftls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A gñ ¼lnkdkUr½ vk;qDr bykgkcn e.My] bykgkcn A 31-01-2000
6. The counsel for the petitioner contends that pendency of criminal case and apprehension of breach of peace and tranquility are two different matters and there is no evidence on record as to how the gun licence granted to the petitioner poses any danger and threat to public peace and tranquility. He further submits that the order dated 31.1.2000 dismissing Appeal NO.11 of 2000 in limine has been passed without calling for the records of Case Crime No. 35 of 2000 under Section 17 of the Arms Act from the court below He further submits that Rule 56 of the Arms Rules, 1962 provides procedure to be followed by the appellate authority as under:-
"Rule 56. On receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority may call for the records of the case from the authority who the order appealed against and after giving the appellant a casonable opportunity of being heard pass final order.
Note: - Sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the Arms Act 1959 lays down that in disposing of an appeal the appellate authority shall follow such procedure that may be prescribed, provided that no appeal shall be disposed of unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity or being heard."
7. The counsel for the petitioner lastly contends that the arms licence of the petitioner could not be cancelled on the ground that a criminal case Was pending against him.
8. The Standing Counsel submits that since there were three criminal cases were pending against the petitioner therefore the licensing authority was justified in passing the impugned order against him under Section 17 of the Arms Act.
9. The question as to whether mere involvement in a Criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate Basti and Ors., 1979 (16) A.C.C. 6 (Sum) wherein the Division Bench relied upon an easier decision in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 A.L.J. 573. In both the aforesaid cases it has been held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. In view of this proposition of law the order cancelling or revoking the licence of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of involvement and pendency of a criminal case is not tenable.
10. It is evident from the record that the petitioner had sold all his If id belongings and property relating to village Nivi Khurd due to his enmity with the influential persons of the village who are alleged to have encroached upon his Rasta, Me is permanently settled in village Kanchanawa which' is part, of Gram Panchayat Pipraon alias Kathauli and is at a distance of about 15 Km from his original village Nivi Khurd. He has also purchased certain plots/land in village Kanchanawa. The place of permanent residence of a person is a question of convenience and intention. From the fact s it is clear that the petitioner has permanently settled down in' village Kanehanawa. He has not concealed any fact for which his licence was cancelled. Mere pendency of a criminal case(s) is no ground for cancellation of arms licence as has been held in the Full Bench decisions of this Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984 (10) A.L.R. 223 and Kailash Nath and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1985 (22) A.C.C. 353 and in the case of Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 1994 J.I.C. 72 ( All) = 1995 (Supp.) A.C.C 235. The effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions was also considered in Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Ors., 1998 (37) A.C.C. 830.
11. After considering the Full Bench and other decisions it has been held in Sadri Ram (supra) that the question whether the licensing authority is clothed with the powers to suspend the licence in the midst of proceedings for suspension or revocation under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 was posed for consideration before another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1991 J.I.C. 102 (All) : 1989 (26) A.C.C. 31, This case is covered by the decisions rendered in Bibhuti Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., & Hari Kant alias Raja v State of U.P. and Ors., 2002 (44) A.C.C. 669. The appellate authority has not applied its mind-nor has recorded any reasons in the order. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
12. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 31.1.2000 and 3.1.2000 are quashed. No order as to costs.