Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 411 (UTT)

GURDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2007-08-01

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2007
RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. ( 1 ) THEY are heard. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs : " (i) To issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the licensing authority in case No. 52/07 year 2003 u/s. 17 Arms Act (Annexure No. 3) and order of the appellate authority in. Arms Appeal No. 24/2004-2005 (Annexure No. 4 ). (ii) To issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to revive the arms licence No. 1 of 2002 of P. S. Amrilsar rifle 315 Bore No. AB002825. (iii) To award the cost of the petition. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner, in substance, is seeking quashing of the order dated 6-1-2005 passed by District Magistrate, Udham Singh nagar, whereby the petitioner's arms license was cancelled and the order dated 14-9-2005 passed by Commissioner, Kumaun division, Nainital, whereby the petitioner's appeal (Arms Appeal No. 24 of 2004-2005)was dismissed. ( 4 ) PETITIONER Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa was holding an Arms License No. 1 of 2002 issued to him in the district of Amritsar (Punjab) for a 315 Bore Rifle No. AB002825. Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh nagar submitted his report dated 24-2-2003 to District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar recommending cancellation of the petitioner's above-mentioned Arms License on the grounds that the petitioner had criminal background; several criminal cases were registered against him; and he was confined in Sub-Jail Haldwani in connection with those criminal cases. ( 5 ) THE District Magistrate, Udham Singh nagar Issued notice (Annexure No. 1) to the petitioner to show-cause as to why his Arms license be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure No. 2) to the above show-cause notice stating therein that the cases registered against the petitioner were false and frivolous; the petitioner has never misused his licensed Rifle; and the facts contained in the report of the Superintendent of Police were incorrect. The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure No. 2) to the above show-cause notice stating therein that the cases registered against the petitioner were false and frivolous; the petitioner has never misused his licensed Rifle; and the facts contained in the report of the Superintendent of Police were incorrect. ( 6 ) THE District Magistrate, Udham Singh nagar, on a thorough consideration of the facts mentioned in the report of Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar and the grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice, found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the report of the Superintendent of Police were factually correct and the explanation given by the petitioner, in his reply, was not worthy of acceptance. The District Magistrate, therefore, passed the order dated 6-1-2005, whereby the petitioner's Arms License was cancelled. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the district Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar cancelling his Arms License, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority i. e. Commissioner, kumaun Mandal, Nainital. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, was barred by time. The appellate authority considered the appeal on merits and passed the impugned order dated 14-9-2005 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on merits notwithstanding that the same was barred by time. ( 8 ) MR. R. S. Sammal, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the main ground contained in the impugned order of cancellation of the petitioner's Arms license was the pendency of the case against the petitioner for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC; the petitioner, now, stands acquitted of the charges under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC vide judgment dated 22-11-2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial Nos. 195 of 2002, 307 of 2003 and 54 of 2004; and the other criminal cases, mentioned in the order of cancellation, under Section 25 of the arms Act are of minor nature. ( 9 ) MR. 195 of 2002, 307 of 2003 and 54 of 2004; and the other criminal cases, mentioned in the order of cancellation, under Section 25 of the arms Act are of minor nature. ( 9 ) MR. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned brief Holder, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders of cancellation of petitioner's Arms License and the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal and contended that on the date of the passing of the order of cancellation of the petitioner's Arms License and the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority, all the criminal cases, mentioned in the order of cancellation, were pending against the petitioner and the petitioner was confined in jail in connection with those cases. ( 10 ) THE District Magistrate, Udham singh Nagar cancelled the petitioner's Arms license in view of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the pendency of several criminal cases against the petitioner for the alleged commission of the various offences, including under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms act. Neither in the writ petition nor during the course of hearing, it was pointed out that the cases registered against the petitioner, other than the one under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC have also resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner. As such, the order of cancellation and the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the order of cancellation will still hold good on account of the pendency of the other criminal cases against the petitioner. Even, the acquittal of the petitioner in the case under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC after passing of the order of cancellation and the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal, would not render the order of cancellation and the dismissal of the appeal illegal. ( 11 ) THE petitioner, admittedly, was served with a show-cause notice before passing of the impugned order of cancellation of his Arms License by the District Magistrate, udham Singh Nagar and the petitioner also submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice. The petitioner was heard by the appellate authority before the passing of the impugned order dismissing the appeal on merits. We are, therefore, satisfied that the principles of natural justice have been followed by the District Magistrate and the appellate authority. The petitioner was heard by the appellate authority before the passing of the impugned order dismissing the appeal on merits. We are, therefore, satisfied that the principles of natural justice have been followed by the District Magistrate and the appellate authority. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by District Magistrate, Udham Singh nagar cancelling the petitioner's Arms License and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal against cancellation of his Arms License. ( 13 ) THE writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ( 14 ) NO order as to costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .