Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1810 (ALL)

Utlesh Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2013-07-09

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2013
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2008 as well as the order dated 26.2.2008 whereby firearm license of the petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred against the said order has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered as Case Crime No.170 of 2000, under Sections 147/148/149/452/504/506/307 I.P.C. On the basis of the said lodging of the criminal case notice for cancellation of firearm license of the petitioner was issued. The petitioner had submitted his reply specifically pleading that he was not involved in the alleged offence and his firearm has not been misused. It was also submitted that the petitioner has been exonerated in the said criminal case and there is no other criminal case pending, however in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, the license of the firearm of the petitioner was cancelled merely on the presumption that his firearm was misused in the aforesaid alleged offence. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that mere lodging of criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel the firearm license of the petitioner. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Abhilakh Vs. The Commissioner Faizabad & Others; Writ Petition No. 1947 (MS) of 1998 wherein vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 it has been held that lodging of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of firearm license. He has also relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd Usman Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ Petition No. 685 (MS) of 2000 wherein vide judgment and order dated 17.1.2013 the Court has reiterated the aforesaid view and has set aside the order for cancellation of firearm license. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of counter affidavit submitted that in the aforesaid criminal case the firearm was used, however due to the crowd assembled at the place of occurrence witnesses could not identify as to who had used the firearm, as such giving the benefit of doubt the petitioner was acquitted. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of counter affidavit submitted that in the aforesaid criminal case the firearm was used, however due to the crowd assembled at the place of occurrence witnesses could not identify as to who had used the firearm, as such giving the benefit of doubt the petitioner was acquitted. The competent authority considering the fact that the firearm was used in the commission of the aforesaid offence has come to the conclusion that there is apprehension of breach of peace and tranquility, as such license of the petitioner has been cancelled. 7. It is also submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 8. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel. 9. It is the admitted position between the parties that in the aforesaid alleged criminal case offence regarding which the proceedings for cancellation of firearm license were initiated, petitioner has been acquitted. 10. The order impugned does not indicate that there was any material evidence to show that the petitioner had misused his firearm in any manner. Merely on the presumption that firearm was used in the commission of the aforesaid offence, the order impugned is said to have been passed. There was no reason for the competent authority to have come to such a conclusion without any material evidence. 11. It has been the consistent view of this Court that merely lodging of the criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel the firearm license. There has to be reason for the competent authority to come to conclusion that petitioner has misused his firearm and there is strong apprehension of breach of peace. 12. The appellate authority has failed to consider the pleadings raised by the petitioner in right perspective and has merely dittoed the order of cancellation of firearm license, the same is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. It is also to be noted that no other criminal case has been lodged or pending against the petitioner, as such, I am of the considered view that the orders impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. As such, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 25.10.2007 as well as the order dated 26.2.2008 are hereby set aside. Consequences shall follow.