# Nar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 514
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 28821 of 2018
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46362
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Arms licence - Cancellation
on the ground of apprehension - No
finding to the effect that continuance of
arms licence is harmful for public peace or
safety - No criminal history of licence
holder - No allegation of obtaining the
licence by means of fraud - Validity
challenged - Held, the cancellation of the
arms licence only on the ground of
apprehension is bad and not sustainable in
the eye of law. (Para 11)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
should also deliberate on this issue and pass
appropriate
resolution/
guidelines.
Therefore, Registry is further directed to
send copy of this order to U.P. Bar Council
and Bar Council of India also for
consideration and doing the needful.

23. Accordingly, present petition
stands
dismissed,
however,
with
the
observations as made above.
----------
(2021)10ILR A514
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD15.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ C No. 28821 of 2018

Nar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Prasad Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Arms licence - Cancellation
on the ground of apprehension - No
finding to the effect that continuance of
arms licence is harmful for public peace or
safety - No criminal history of licence
holder - No allegation of obtaining the
licence by means of fraud - Validity
challenged - Held, the cancellation of the
arms licence only on the ground of
apprehension is bad and not sustainable in
the eye of law. (Para 11)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Satyendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu Singh Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.; 2016 0 Supreme (All) 358
2. Hiramani Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2010
LawSuit (All) 3030
3. Rajendra Singh Vs Commissioner, Lucknow
Division, Lucknow & ors.; 2011 LawSuit(All)
2876
4. Mulayam Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2012
LawSuit(all) 1651
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner was issued arms
licence of pistol by the District Magistrate,
Gorakhpur vide order dated 14.6.2013 and
accordingly, he purchased the pistol. He
next submitted that District Magistrate,
Gorakhpur-respondent no. 3 issued show
cause notice under Section 17(3) of the
Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act, 1959) to the petitioner on
12.10.2015 as to why his licence may not
be cancelled, against which petitioner filed
reply on 9.3.2016. Ultimately respondent
no. 3 vide impugned order dated 10.5.2016
cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner
only on the ground of apprehension.
Petitioner is a law abiding person and
during course of Panchayat Election, 2015,
he deposited his pistol in the Malkhana of
Police Station Gagaha. He next submitted
that in the impugned order, it has been
observed that in an incident, petitioner
himself has received injury, but contrary to
that, his arms licence has been cancelled on
the ground of apprehension only. Against
the said order, petitioner preferred an
appeal under Section17 (3) of the Act, 1959
which was also dismissed by the Divisional
Commissioner vide order dated 17.02.2018
affirming the order of the respondent no. 3.
He next submitted that petitioner is having
no criminal case except challan under
10 All. Nar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
515
Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. and 151 I.P.C. in
which he was released on furnishing the
bail bond. The term of challan under the
aforesaid sections expires after six months.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgments of this Court in
the cases of Satyendra Bahadur Singh @
Guddu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported as 2016 0 Supreme (All) 358,
Hiramani Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
another reported as 2010 LawSuit (All)
3030 decided on 15.12.2010, Rajendra
Singh
Vs.
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow and others reported as
2011 LawSuit(All) 2876 decided on
10.03.2011 and Mulayam Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and others reported as 2012
LawSuit(all) 1651 decided on 14.05.2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that in the matter of
Satyendra Bahadur Singh (supra) which
is based on same facts, the Court has taken
the
view
that
on
the
ground
of
apprehension, arms licence cannot be
cancelled. He next submitted that in the
aforesaid three other judgments, the Court
has also taken the view that even in case of
pendency of solitary criminal case, arms
licence cannot be cancelled, therefore, the
impugned orders dated 10.5.2016 and
17.2.2018 are bad in law and liable to be
quashed.

5.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
vehemently opposed the submissions raised
by learned counsel for the petitioner, but
could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record, impugned orders as
well as judgments relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner. The undisputed
fact is that petitioner is having no criminal
case except challan under Sections 107/116
Cr.P.C. and 151 I.P.C. Further he himself
received gun shot injury from his rivals and
he has also been released under Sections
107/116 Cr.P.C. and 151 I.P.C. after
furnishing the bail bond even otherwise its
a preventive measure. In the impugned
order, reason for cancellation of arms
licence is only apprehension and there is no
finding to demonstrate that continuance of
arms licence is harmful for public peace or
safety. The appellate authority has also
affirmed
the
order
of
the
District
Magistrate-respondent
no.
3
without
considering this fact that apprehension
cannot be a ground for cancellation of arms
licence coupled with no criminal incident
of licence holder i.e. petitioner.

7. In the first judgment relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner in the
case of Satyendra Bahadur Singh (Supra)
the Court has held that on the ground of
apprehension, arms licence cannot be
cancelled. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said
judgment are quoted below:-

"10. I have gone through the
entire counter affidavit and in none of the
paragraph, it is stated that after giving a
show cause notice to the petitioner, the
petitioner's fire arms licence has been
cancelled. Further in view of Sub-Section 3
(a to e) of Section 17 of the Act, the
licensing authority may cancel the licence
provided he is satisfied that in case license
is not cancelled and fire arms licence is
allowed to be in possession of licensee, it
may break the public peace and safety but
for recording the satisfaction regarding
breach of public peace and safety, there
must be concrete material to show that
there is strong likelihood of breach of
public peace and safety.
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. The only ground under which
petitioner's fire arm licence has been
cancelled is apprehension of annoyance of
the family of the complainant, in whose
family,
murder
took
place
and
the
petitioner has been acquitted in the
criminal trial. After acquittal of the
petitioner by no stretch of imagination it
can be assumed that having license by the
petitioner in any manner may lead to
disturbance of public peace and public
safety
or
put
the members
of
the
complainant family in danger, likelihood of
anger and anguish of a third person cannot
be ground on which fire arm licence can be
cancelled by the licensing authority."

8. In the matter of Hiramani Singh
(supra) the Court has held that mere
pendency of criminal case cannot be
ground for cancellation of fire arm.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment are
quoted below:-

"6.
Countering
the
said
submission learned Standing counsel on the
other hand contended that rightful view has
been
taken
in
the
matter
and
no
interference should be made.

After respective arguments have
been advanced factual position which is
emerging in the present case that petitioner
has been arrayed as an accused in Case
Crime No. 391 of 2008, P.S. Colonelganj
district Allahabad under sections 419, 420,
447, 448, 120-B I.P.C. . In the said
criminal case charge sheet has been filed
and the matter is pending before the
concerned court and even before this Court
for quashing of the same. Show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner to which
he submitted his reply. Accepted position is
that there has been civil dispute in between
the parties and fire arm in question has not
at all been used in the criminal case
wherein he has been arrayed as accused,
then merely on account of pendency of the
said criminal case, fire arm could not have
been cancelled as has been done in the
present case as it is not at reflected as to in
what way and manner public peace and
public safety has been endangered rather
on apprehension such an action has been
initiated.

7. This Court in the case of Ashok
Rao Vs. State of U.P. and others reported
in 2010 (68) ACC 441 while considering
the authority to be exercised under Section
17 of the Indian Arms Act has taken the
view that mere pendency of criminal case
cannot be ground for cancellation of fire
arm license unless and until finding is
returned by the authority concerned that
possession of firearm has the tendency of
threatening public peace and public
safety."

9. In the case of Rajendra Singh
(supra), the Court has taken the same view
that mere involvement in a criminal case or
pendency of solitary criminal case, cannot
be a ground for cancellation of arms
licence. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is
quoted below:-

"6. It is well settled in law that
mere pendency of criminal case or
apprehension of abuse of arms Act are not
sufficient grounds for passing the order of
suspension or revocation of licence under
Section 17 (3) of the Act. The question as to
whether mere involvement in a criminal
case or pendency of a criminal case can be
a ground for revocation of licence under
Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division
Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra
v. The District Magistrate, Basti and
others, wherein the Division Bench relying
10 All. Sher Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
517
upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin v.
Commissioner Allahabad, found that mere
involvement in criminal case cannot in any
way affect the public security or public
interest. The law propounded in the said
decisions has been subsequently following
in Habib v. State of U.P. 2002 44 ACC 783.

10. In the matter of Mulayam Singh
(supra), the court has taken the view that
mere involvement in a criminal case is no
ground for cancelling a arms licence under
Section 17 of the Act, 1959. Paragraphs 8
and 12 of the said judgment are quoted
below:-

"8. Even otherwise, it is well
settled that mere involvement in a criminal
case is no ground for cancelling a licence
under Section 17 of the Act."

11. After considering the fact and
judgments relied upon, it is held that only
apprehension or pendency of solitary
criminal case not coupled with factum of
fraud can be a ground for cancellation of
arms licence. In the present case, petitioner
has
neither
obtained
arms
licence
fraudulently nor having any criminal
history, but it has been cancelled only on
the ground of apprehension, which is bad
and not sustainable in the eye of law.

12. Therefore, the impugned orders
dated 10.5.2016 passed by respondent no.
3-District
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur
and
17.2.2018
passed
by
Divisional
Commissioner, Gorakhpur-respondent no.
2 are hereby quashed. The writ petition is
allowed.
The
District
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur is directed to issue the arms
licence in favour of the petitioner within a
period of two months from the date of
production of computer generated copy of
this order after verifying the same from
official website of Allahabad High Court.
In case term of arms licence has been
expired, he shall also renew the same in
accordance with law within the same
period.

13. After issuance of arms licence his
pistol shall also be released from the
Malkhana
of
Police
Station
Gagaha
forthwith.
----------
(2021)10ILR A517
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12850 of 2021

Sher Ali ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri A Kumar Srivastava, Sri Anand Kumar
Upadhyay, Husnaara Khatoon, Sri Ramesh
Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
323, 504 and 506 - SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 - Section
3(1)(D), Dha , Section 14A(1) - Appeals -
taking cognizance of an offence and
summoning the accused is intermediate
order. (Para - 6)

Police submitted charge-sheet against applicant
for the offence - cognizance order passed by
Special Judge SC/ST Act - summoned applicant
to face trial - Application filed U/S 482 to quash
entire criminal proceeding .