Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Kapildeo Singh And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 7 April, 1993
Thus, it can very well be concluded, by appreciating
the ratio of what has been held by the Full Bench, that acquittal
from a charge renders the suspension or revocation of licence void
in itself. Moreover, it has specifically been held in paragraph
no.11, by the Full Bench in Kapildeo Singh (supra) that it is not
the pendency of any and every criminal case which would
inflexibly warrant the suspension or revocation of licence validly
granted. A criminal case may range from a paltry traffic offence to
Patna High Court CWJC No.10358 of 2015 (3) dt.29-06-2017
17/17
the most horrendous capital crime. Whilst the pendency of the
former may hardly provide an adequate basis under Section 17(3),
in the case of the latter after notice and hearing of the explanation
such action may well become necessary.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 7 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Chandan Kumar Yadav@ Chandan Yadav @ ... vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 March, 2013
No doubt, the petitioner was accused in a case
registered for serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC and
that was the only ground for cancellation of licence under Section
17 (3)(a) of the Arms Act. It is well settled law that judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is primarily
concerned with the decision making process rather than the merits
of the initial decision. Natural justice does not mean giving a show
cause and acceptance of reply only. The reply to the show cause
given by the licence holder is required to be considered and based
upon the overall circumstance, the licensing authority has to give
his satisfaction to the effect that in view of the nature of case
against the licence holder and in view of the circumstances, which
gets culled out, the licence holder is unfit for holding the licence
for arms under the Act. The safeguard in this regard is provided
under sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Arms Act which
stipulates that the licensing authority must record reasons in
writing and also furnish a brief statement of the same to the holder
of licence, on his demand, unless in exceptional cases, he is of the
opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such
Patna High Court CWJC No.10358 of 2015 (3) dt.29-06-2017
9/17
statement. Hence, from a conjoint of Section 17(3) and Section
17(5), it emanates that the subjective satisfaction has to be broadly
and reasonably exercised. The impugned order passed by the
Collector does not suggest that the reply to the show cause
submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Collector and
mechanically by a cryptic order, the Divisional Commissioner has
affirmed the order of the District Arms Magistrate, hence on this
ground also, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Reliance
may be placed on the case of Chandan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of
Bihar reported in 2013(2) PLJR 605. In the said case also, the
District Magistrate had held that the reply to the show cause is not
satisfactory and hence it was held that the show cause is not
unsustainable in law. Paragraph no.9 of the judgment reads as
follows:-
1