# Prabhu Dayal Claimant/ v. State of U.P. & others / - **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1205 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-03-02 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4563 of 2005 - **Bench:** Amar Saran - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prabhu-dayal-claimant-v-state-of-u-p-others-40673 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Act-Section 17-Proceeding for cancellation of fire Arms-On the loan taken by the petitioner and his family member from Tulsi Gramin Bank not repaid-held-the suspension including the proceeding for cancellation-illegal. Held: Para 5 In the present case, the notice itself is misconceived as even if the ground mentioned in the notice is taken to be correct then too the licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled as the same is not a ground contemplated in law for cancellation or suspension of the arms licence. As such the order of suspension as well as the proceedings for cancellation in pursuance thereof, are both liable to be set aside. Case law discussed: 1988 AWC-1481 1985 AWC-493 1998 All. C.J.-1449 ## Text 3All] Prabhu Dayal V. State of U.P. and another 1205 production of a certified copy of this judgment and order, who had been allowed to appear in the examination in terms of interim orders passed by this Court. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J. Criminal Appeal No. 4563 of 2005 Prabhu Dayal ...Claimant/Appellant Versus State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties/ Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Hardev Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ravi Prakash Singh A.G.A. U.P. Gangsters and anti social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986-Section 14 (i)- Attachment of ancestral property-not acquired by the gangster-can not be attached. Held: Para 3 As the order attaching the property clearly states that the property belongs to Khajji's grandfather, hence it cannot be said that the property had been acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the said Act. (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged in this case. 2. A very short submission has been made in this case that as per the order of attachment of the disputed property under section 14 (1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 12.10.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, the said property was an ancestral property as it belonged to the applicant, Prabhu Dayal's father, Bhagwandin, and even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the appellant Prabhu Dayal's son Khajji @ Rupesh has spent money in the renovation of the said property, as the property had been acquired in a legal manner, the property could not have been attached. In this connection reliance has been placed on section 14 (1) of the Act, which is being quoted hereinbelow: "14 Attachment of property.-(1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court. (2) ..........." 3. As the order attaching the property clearly states that the property belongs to Khajji's grandfather, hence it cannot be said that the property had been acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the said Act. 1206 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 4. The appeal, therefore, succeeds on the aforesaid short point in the result, the impugned orders dated 12.10.2004 and 29.9.2005 are set aside and the property in dispute is directed to be released in favour of the appellant forthwith. Appeal Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42257 of 2006 Samar Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.V. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Arms Act-Section 17-Proceeding for cancellation of fire Arms-On the loan taken by the petitioner and his family member from Tulsi Gramin Bank not repaid-held-the suspension including the proceeding for cancellation-illegal. Held: Para 5 In the present case, the notice itself is misconceived as even if the ground mentioned in the notice is taken to be correct then too the licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled as the same is not a ground contemplated in law for cancellation or suspension of the arms licence. As such the order of suspension as well as the proceedings for cancellation in pursuance thereof, are both liable to be set aside. Case law discussed: 1988 AWC-1481 1985 AWC-493 1998 All. C.J.-1449 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.) 1. The firearms licence of the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 29.5.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri P.V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit. 3. The sole ground for suspension of the fire arm licence is that the petitioner as well as his family members have not repaid the loan of Tulsi Gramin Bank. It is very surprising that how the nonpayment of dues of a Bank would be relevant for suspension or cancellation of the fire arms licence of the petitioner. Such ground is not contemplated under the Act or Rules for cancellation. 4. Even otherwise, this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58216 of 2005 (Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein, after considering the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 1988 A.W.C. 1481, Kailash Nath Vs. State of U.P. 1985 A.W.C. 493 as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sadri Ram Vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others 1998 All.C.J. 1449, has held that the arms license cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry.