Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 951 (JHR)

JAGARNATH GOPE v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2004-09-16

M.Y.EQBAL

body2004
Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 13-12-1999 passed by the Collector, Dhanbad and the order dated 26-2-2002 passed by the Commissioner. North Chotanagpur Division, hazarjbagh whereby the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is the holder of a rifle bearing no. 11563 and licence No. 2/1990 under putki Police Station. On a complaint from oic, Munidih (Dhanbad), the Deputy Commissioner suspended the licence of the petitioner and he was asked to file show-cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled. Since the petitioner was involved in a case instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324. 337 and 448 I. P. C. , he was directed to deposit his arms and submit a show cause in a cancellation proceeding initiated against him. The Deputy Commissioner having no,t satisfied with the show -cause submitted by the petitioner, passed an order for cancellation of the licence. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the commissioner. North Chotanagpur, Hazari-bagh being Arms Appeal No. 44 of 2000. It was argued before the Commissioner that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. The Commissioner by the impugned order upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the criminal case against the petitioner was initiated for committing various offences and for rioting. The petitioner did not file any document even before the Commissioner to the effect that he was acquitted in the criminal case rather the petitioner was directed to deposit the arms during the Lok Sabha election held in 1998. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A. A. G. appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 5 ) IT Is well-settled that grant of arms licence is not a fundamental right nor there is fundamental right to carry arms. It is a privilege conferred by the Act. Grant of licence is always subject to the satisfaction and discretion of the licensing authority. ( 6 ) MR. Prabir Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the criminal case, petitioner was acquitted and there Is no case pending against him, so the respondents should not have cancelled the licence. Grant of licence is always subject to the satisfaction and discretion of the licensing authority. ( 6 ) MR. Prabir Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the criminal case, petitioner was acquitted and there Is no case pending against him, so the respondents should not have cancelled the licence. I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The conviction or acquittal on the criminal charge does not have a conclusive impact, on the discretion of the licensing authority, even in a case of acquittal, the licensing authority is not debarred from taking the view that the person is unfit to hold a licence. In this connection, reference may be to a decision of the Full bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar (F. B.) (1987 PUR 385) : (AIR1987 Pat122 ; 1987 cri LJ 960 ). ( 7 ) BE that as may, since the Deputy Commissioner being the licensing authority and the Commissioner being the appellate authority have exercised their discretion against the petitioner in holding that the licence of the petitioner is to be cancelled this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction do not think it fit to interfere with the order. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .