Allahabad High Court
Firasat Ali vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 November, 2010
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66924 of 2010 Petitioner :- Firasat Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Zafeer Ahmad Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
The petitioner has come up against the order of District Magistrate dated 9.4.2009 and the order in appeal dated 16.8.2010 affirming the same whereby the arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled. The arms licnese was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a solitary criminal case being case crime no. 768 of 2008 under section 323/504/506/307 IPC. During the pendency of the appeal before learned Commissioner the petitioner appears to have produced a copy of the judgment of the trial court acquitting the petitioner dated 10.6.2010 which has also been brought herein on record. A perusal thereof indicates that the victim has not been found to suffer any firearm injury. Not only this it is a clear acquittal after discussing the entire evidence of a competent court. Learned Commissioner while disposing of the appeal has arrived at the conclusion that police report indicates that the petitioner had utilized the said arm, during the said occurrence. He has further rendered an opinion that since the aforesaid criminal case was registered against him therefore it can not be said that the petitioner will not misuse his firearm in future.
In the opinion of the court the same can not be a basis for cancelling the arms licnese inasmuch as the said observation is on pure surmises on the future use or misuse of fire arm. Such a possibility is not an ingredient as contemplated under section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, inasmuch as there has to be a finding with regard to disturbance of public peace and tranquility before a firearm license is cancelled. Learned Commissioner has therefore not proceeded to adjudicate the controversy in correct perspective. This Court is supported in its view by the decision of this Court reference reported in 2003 ACJ (10) 122 (Ujagar Singh Vs. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly and another and 2002 ALR (49) 307. A finding on the question of disturbance of law and order has to precede before cancellation takes effect. A mere involvement in a criminal case can not be the sole ground for cancellation as held by this Court in case reported in 2009, (01) ADJ 244.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.8.2010 as well as the order of the District Magistrate dated 9.4.2009 are set aside. The District Magistrate, Rampur shall pass appropriate orders within six weeks in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
Order Date :- 16.11.2010 SR