Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1350 (ALL)

Arvind Rai v. State Of U. P.

2025-11-20

KUNAL RAVI SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Kunal Ravi Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh and order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh as well as order dated 09.12.2020 passed in recall application filed by the petitioner. 3. By means of order dated 21.12.2012, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh had cancelled the SBBL Gun License No.372/04 on the basis of two criminal cases pending against the petitioner as Case Crime No.664 of 2010 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) of SC/ST Act and Case Crime No.808 of 2010 under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The said order passed by the concerned District Magistrate has been allowed ex-parte against the petitioner and the appeal has been rejected. The ex-parte rejection of the appeal was sought to be recalled by means of recall application which has also been dismissed on 09.12.2020. Consequently, all the three orders are challenged herein. FACTS : 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted gun license for SBBL Gun No. BE 949/2001 which was registered as License No.372/04. On the report of S.H.O., Gambhirpur, District-Azamgarh dated 15.10.2010 and the subsequent recommendation by the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, case was instituted against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner uses his licensed weapon to threaten the persons belonging to Reserve Categories and the petitioner has misused his weapon which resulted in a criminal case being filed against him under the relevant Acts. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that keeping the license in possession of the petitioner would lead to public safety issues. The petitioner filed his reply to the initial notice and submitted that the case against the petitioner is a result of enmity with certain residents of the village. The petitioner never used his weapon in contravention of any conditions mentioned in the Arms License or relevant Act and Rules. Except the alleged offences mentioned above, no criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner is not a person of criminal tendency. The petitioner never used his weapon in contravention of any conditions mentioned in the Arms License or relevant Act and Rules. Except the alleged offences mentioned above, no criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner is not a person of criminal tendency. The said reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and on the basis of the Case Crime No.664 of 2010 and Case Crime No.808 of 2010, arms license of the petitioner was cancelled in public safety. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh who by means of ex-parte order dated 20.06.2018, upheld the order passed by the concerned District Magistrate by which license of the petitioner was cancelled. Since, the said order was ex-parte order, therefore, the petitioner filed a recall application which was dismissed by means of order dated 09.12.2020 on the ground that there is no provision of recalling any appellate order. The recall application was held to be not maintainable. SUBMISSIONS :- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled on a singular issue i.e. lodging of an FIR against him in two case crime numbers. He further submits that regarding two case crime numbers, decision has now been taken by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Azamgarh in which the petitioner has been acquitted from any of the alleged offences. He further submits that since the petitioner has been acquitted, therefore, the license of the petitioner is liable to be restored and on this ground, the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents contends that even though the petitioner may have been acquitted in the said case crime number but the issue involved is of public safety and the Sessions Court has not examined the correct aspects with regard to other offences and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be upheld and need no interference by this Court. ISSUES :- 7. Heard rival submissions and perused the records. The following issues are framed for adjudication of the present dispute :- (A) Whether the cancellation of the gun license of the petitioner was in accordance with law ? (B) Whether the subsequent event of acquittal of the petitioner would render the impugned orders vitiated ? ANALYSIS :- 8. ISSUES :- 7. Heard rival submissions and perused the records. The following issues are framed for adjudication of the present dispute :- (A) Whether the cancellation of the gun license of the petitioner was in accordance with law ? (B) Whether the subsequent event of acquittal of the petitioner would render the impugned orders vitiated ? ANALYSIS :- 8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 shows that the arms license of the licensee has been cancelled on the ground of pending criminal proceedings against him as Case Crime No.664 of 2010 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) of SC/ST Act and Case Crime No.808 of 2010 under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Furthermore, in the report of concerned S.H.O., it is stated that the licensee and his family members have threatened several villagers, due to which peace and tranquility of the area has been disturbed and it cannot be denied that there is apprehension of further breach of peace. The impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is based upon the fact that there is breach of peace and danger to public safety. The District Magistrate, merely on the basis of lodging the case crime and a report of concerned S.H.O., has passed the order of cancellation. 9. The fact of acquittal of the petitioner in the said case crime numbers could not be placed before the concerned District Magistrate as the impugned order is before the date of acquittal of the petitioner. Even though, an appeal under the Arms Act, 1959 was filed on 03.11.2023, however the appeal was decided ex-parte against the petitioner as the counsel for the appellant failed to appear before the court. In the recall application filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the counsel, who was engaged for arguing the appeal, died on 09.08.2018 and as such, the appeal could not be pressed and the recall application was also dismissed as not maintainable. Such a subsequent event has a material bearing on the case and the same can be looked into by this Court while examining the correctness of the impugned orders especially when there is no averment by the State respondents that the said order of acquittal was challenged before any higher forum. 10. Furthermore, with regard to public firing, the impugned order is silent with regard to violation of any condition. 10. Furthermore, with regard to public firing, the impugned order is silent with regard to violation of any condition. Without giving a finding with regard to which provision of Act/Rules was violated by the petitioner, the alleged event of public firing cannot be looked into and as such, the impugned orders are vitiated on this ground also. 11. No doubt, the grant of license is not a right but only a privilege [vide Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and others ; AIR 1985 ALL 291] but the revocation of the privilege would require misuse of the license/firearm. In the present case, the alleged act of misuse has been set at naught by the Sessions Court and as such, there is no violation of the license/firearm. It is a well settled law that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of the Arms license. [Vide (i) Writ C no. 62813 of 2017 ; Jai Prakash @ Raju Vs. State of U.P. and others ; (ii) Writ C No.19871 of 2021 ; Suresh Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others ] . Furthermore, acquittal from a criminal case would also render the impugned orders vitiated. [Vide Habib Vs. State of U.P. ; 2002 ACC 783] 12. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the subsequent event of acquittal of the petitioner in Case Crime No.664 of 2010 and Case Crime No.808 of 2010, on the basis of which the impugned orders are being passed, it is clear that the impugned orders cannot stand any legal scrutiny. Even though in the appeal, order of the Sessions Court could not be placed as the counsel appearing for the petitioner had died during the pendency of the appeal but the same can be considered by this court while seeing the validity of the impugned orders as it is an event subsequent to the passing of the order of District Magistrate and has material bearing at the issue at hand. In case, any subsequent event has happened which may shorten litigation and enable the Courts to do complete justice then the same must be looked into for moulding the relief. [Vide (i) Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders ; AIR 1975 SCC 1409, (ii) Om Prakash Gupta Vs. In case, any subsequent event has happened which may shorten litigation and enable the Courts to do complete justice then the same must be looked into for moulding the relief. [Vide (i) Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders ; AIR 1975 SCC 1409, (ii) Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Ranbir B. Goyal ; AIR 2002 SC 665 ; (iii) J. Ganapatha and others Vs. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and ors. ; 2025 (2) CCC 59] . Since, there is a acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid case crime no., therefore, order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh and order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh as well as order dated 09.12.2020 passed in recall application do not pass judicial scrutiny and as such are liable to be set-aside. REPLY TO ISSUES :- 13. In the light of above discussions with regard to issue (A), in the opinion of this Court, cancellation of the gun license was not in accordance with law and with regard to issue (B), the subsequent event of acquittal of the petitioner would render the impugned orders as vitiated. RELIEF :- 14. In the light of above :- (i) order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh and order dated 09.12.2020 passed in recall application are hereby set-aside ; (ii) A direction is issued to the concerned Authorities to consider the restoration of the arms license of the petitioner and pass appropriate order keeping in mind the above findings in accordance with law after obtaining necessary police verification. The said order shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 15. With the abovesaid directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed.