Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 27 (PAT)

Baij Nath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2012-01-06

RAVI RANJAN

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.1999/30.06.1999 (Annexure-4) passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram in Arms Case No.9/98, whereby the licence of DBBL gun of the petitioner has been cancelled, as well as the appellate order dated 28.09.2004 passed in Arms Appeal No.116 of 1999 by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna ((Annexure-5), affirming the original order passed by the District Magistrate concerned and dismissing the appeal. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted Arms Licence No.244 of 1972 Dawath/576 of 1971 Shahabad by the competent authority, however, the same was suspended as the petitioner along with other seven persons were made accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the First Information Report being Dawath Police Station Case No.04 of 1991 was instituted against them. The licence was suspended till the result of the trial. It is submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges as a judgment of acquittal has been passed by the trial court, a copy of which is appended as Annexure-3. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for revocation of suspension of license on the ground that neither any one has got any injury from his gun nor that was fired during the occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revocation has been denied and the licence has been cancelled by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 on the ground that it appears from the judgment of acquittal that due to compromise between the parties, the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner has not been acquitted on merit rather he has been acquitted as the prosecution could not establish the case due to the fact that the witnesses have become hostile due to some compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities cannot interpret the judgment of acquittal in this manner. The petitioner has not been acquitted on merit rather he has been acquitted as the prosecution could not establish the case due to the fact that the witnesses have become hostile due to some compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities cannot interpret the judgment of acquittal in this manner. It is submitted that from perusal of the judgment it does not appear that any compromise petition had been filed by the parties and was considered by the trial court rather the trial court has opined that it appears that due to some compromise arrived at between the parties out of court, the prosecution witnesses have not supported the allegation. However, the petitioner has been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges. In above view of the matter, it has been submitted that the order passed by the licensing authority is illegal and requires to be quashed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. 5. At the time of hearing, it has been reiterated by the learned counsel for the State that from the judgment of acquittal, it appears that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have become hostile. From the order of the trial court, it appears that some compromise have arrived at between the parties, therefore, the witnesses have not supported the case. 6. However, this Court does not find any force in the submission made on behalf of the State. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that none of the witnesses have supported the case and they have become hostile and the trial court has opined that it appears that due some compromise arrived at between the parties outside the court it appears that they have not supported the allegation against the accused persons. However, the net result has been recorded therein in clear words that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges, thus, the accused persons have not been held to be guilty. However, even after acquittal of the petitioner, the authority concerned has again denied revocation of suspension and cancelled the arms licence by interpreting the judgment in its own way that was not required to be done at all. However, even after acquittal of the petitioner, the authority concerned has again denied revocation of suspension and cancelled the arms licence by interpreting the judgment in its own way that was not required to be done at all. If the prosecution has failed to prove the charges and the court has not found him guilty then any observation made in between the lines cannot form basis of refusal of revocation or cancellation of the concerned license. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 29.06.1999/30.06.1999 (Annexure-4) and order dated 28.09.2004 (Annexure-5) cannot be sustained and as a result both are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Rohatas at Sasaram to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after consideration of the observations of this Court contained in the present order within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed.