Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 136 (ALL)

Gajendra Narayan Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-01-11

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, is taken on record. Heard Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.03.2009, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow, whereby the Arms License No. 14772 in respect of Riffle No. AB-049553 owned by the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29.04.2009, passed by the Appellate Authority whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.03.2009 was dismissed. 3. The facts of the case, as can be gathered from the pleadings available on record, are that a report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow was received by the Licensing Authority along with report dated 06.02.2008 submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow in respect of alleged misuse of the arms by the petitioner. According to the said report submitted by the Station House Officer concerned, it was reported that during random checking on 23.12.2007, the petitioner fled from the premises of district jail, Lucknow leaving his riffle unattended amidst the flower pots which was recovered from the said place. However, despite search operation, the petitioner could not be traced and accordingly, a Crime Case No. 414 of 2007, under Sections 25/27/30 of the Arms Act was registered. It was further alleged in the said report that a vehicle bearing No. U.P. 32 B.J.-2686 was also recovered which was lodged with the Police Station. The report further stated that on the date when these recoveries were made, a dreaded criminal was to be released from jail and it appears that the said vehicle and riffle, which were left unattended, were brought to escort the said criminal and further that seeing the police party the petitioner fled from the scene leaving licensed arm on the spot. 4. On the basis of said police report, the petitioner's arms license was suspended on 29.02.2008 and the petitioner was required to submit his reply/explanation to the show cause notice issued simultaneously. 4. On the basis of said police report, the petitioner's arms license was suspended on 29.02.2008 and the petitioner was required to submit his reply/explanation to the show cause notice issued simultaneously. The petitioner had put in appearance on 17.03.2008, however, he submitted his reply on 30.05.2008 stating therein that report dated 06.02.2008 which has been made the basis of instituting the proceedings against the petitioner is based on incorrect and concocted facts and further that the fact of the matter is that during checking the local police had snatched his riffle on 29.12.2007 from Alambagh Chauraha. It was the police which had submitted concocted report. It was also stated by the petitioner that no incident had been reported against him which established that riffle in question was misused or it would have created a situation of breach of public peace and tranquility. The petitioner further stated in his reply that he did not have any criminal history, as such the proceedings initiated for cancellation of license be dropped and the suspension order in respect thereof be also set aside. However, learned Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow passed an order on 07.03.2009 cancelling the license of the petitioner stating therein that the story set up by the police cannot be disbelieved for the simple reason that if the riffle, as was alleged by the petitioner, was snatched by the police on 29.12.2007 during checking, he would have taken some action for recovering the same and having not done so the petitioner appears to be not putting the correct facts. 5. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order dated 07.03.2009 before the Appellate Authority and the appeal preferred by the petitioner, too was dismissed by the appellate authority reiterating the findings recorded by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) and further stating that the petitioner did not inform the court of Judicial Magistrate, III, Lucknow that his license was suspended. 6. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was charge-sheeted before the court concerned for an offence allegedly committed by him under Section 30 of the Arms Act, however, on trial he has been acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by means of order dated 19.10.2012. 7. 6. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was charge-sheeted before the court concerned for an offence allegedly committed by him under Section 30 of the Arms Act, however, on trial he has been acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by means of order dated 19.10.2012. 7. It may be relevant to observe at this juncture that the entire proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of arms license were initiated on the basis of incident narrated in the impugned order of cancellation of the arms license which allegedly had occurred on 23.12.2007 on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act. The incident which formed the basis of the report submitted by the Station House Officer which resulted into initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner for cancellation of arms license, is the same on the basis of which the charge sheet against the petitioner before the court of criminal jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Arms Act was submitted. The learned trial court by means of order dated 19.10.2012 has found the evidence led by the prosecution not sufficient to establish the charges against the petitioner and as such the court below acquitted him of the said charges under Section 30 of the Arms Act. Though, it is not necessary that if in a criminal case the petitioner was acquitted, necessarily the cancellation of arms license should also be set aside, however, in the instant case, since the incident which formed the basis of cancellation of arms license of the petitioner is the same on the basis of which the petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act, as such the petitioner's acquittal in a criminal case has major bearing so far as the cancellation of arms license is concerned. It is also very significant to note that except for the said alleged abuse of the arm, no other ground has been taken while passing the order cancelling the petitioner's license. The Licensing Authority while passing the order of cancellation has not recorded any finding regarding breach of peace etc. It is also very significant to note that except for the said alleged abuse of the arm, no other ground has been taken while passing the order cancelling the petitioner's license. The Licensing Authority while passing the order of cancellation has not recorded any finding regarding breach of peace etc. In sum and substance, the basis of criminal case against the petitioner is verbatim the same which is the basis on the action against the petitioner which has resulted into cancellation of the arms license. 8. In so far as the finding recorded by the Licensing Authority as also by the Appellate Authority that petitioner did not submit correct information before the Judicial Magistrate, I may only observe that before the Judicial Magistrate, a report was submitted by the State/Police authorities wherein it was indicated that petitioner's license was neither suspended nor cancelled. 9. Looking into over all facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 30 of the Arms Act and also taking into account the fact mentioned in the supplementary affidavit dated 11.01.2016 that no criminal history against the petitioner is registered after filing of the instant writ petition, in my considered opinion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2009, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow cancelling the arms license of the petitioner and the appellate order dated 24.04.2009, passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed. 11. As a result of this judgment and order, the case for renewal of the arms license of the petitioner shall be considered by the Licensing Authority in accordance with law expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. There will be no order as to costs.