# Ram Prasad v. Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 532
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-07
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 56378 of 2006
- **Bench:** Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prasad-v-commissioner-moradabad-division-moradabad-anr-45708
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3) - Word 'Public peace' or 'Public safety' -
Meaning - Obligation of authority - Public
peace or public safety do not mean ordinary
disturbance of law and order - Public safety
means safety of the public at large and not
safety of few persons only - The Licensing
Authority is under an obligation to apply his
mind to the question as to whether there was
eminent danger to public peace and public
safety before passing the order. (Para 29)

B. Civil Law-Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3) - Cancellation of Licence - Ground
of pendency of criminal case - Acquittal - After
acquittal the very basis of the order of
cancellation vanished - The finding of the
District
Magistrate
as
affirmed
by
the
Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of
public peace and the public security that the
licence remained with the petitioner/licencee, is
not based on any evidence/material, except the
police reports which in their turn were in view
of the pendency of the criminal case against
the
petitioner -
On mere apprehension
expressed in the impugned orders that the
petitioner would misuse the fire arm and would
extend threat to the persons of the weaker
section of the society, the arm licence could
not be cancelled. (Para 36)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
List of cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,943 of 54,779. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39943 for what follows._

532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
award to exclude the direction regarding
reinstatement, the ends of justice would be
served by requiring the Employers to pay a
lump sum of Rs.5 lakhs, in lieu of the
direction for reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service, within
two months of the date of this judgment.

30. In the result, this writ petition is
allowed in part. The impugned award
dated 07.09.2012 is modified to provide
that in substitution of the direction to
reinstate the workman with continuity of
service, payment of salary for the period of
suspension and the entire back-wages for
the period that he remained out of service,
there shall be a direction to the Employers
to pay the workman a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in
lump sum, within two months of the date
of this judgment. In the event of default,
the aforesaid sum shall carry interest
reckoned at Bank Rate until realization in
accordance with law. The Employers shall
pay the workman costs in the sum of
Rs.20,000/-.
----------
(2020)02ILR A532

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ C No. 56378 of 2006

Ram Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner
Moradabad
Division,
Moradabad & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri T.S. Dabas, Sri Akash Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3) - Word 'Public peace' or 'Public safety' -
Meaning - Obligation of authority - Public
peace or public safety do not mean ordinary
disturbance of law and order - Public safety
means safety of the public at large and not
safety of few persons only - The Licensing
Authority is under an obligation to apply his
mind to the question as to whether there was
eminent danger to public peace and public
safety before passing the order. (Para 29)

B. Civil Law-Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3) - Cancellation of Licence - Ground
of pendency of criminal case - Acquittal - After
acquittal the very basis of the order of
cancellation vanished - The finding of the
District
Magistrate
as
affirmed
by
the
Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of
public peace and the public security that the
licence remained with the petitioner/licencee, is
not based on any evidence/material, except the
police reports which in their turn were in view
of the pendency of the criminal case against
the
petitioner -
On mere apprehension
expressed in the impugned orders that the
petitioner would misuse the fire arm and would
extend threat to the persons of the weaker
section of the society, the arm licence could
not be cancelled. (Para 36)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)
List of cases cited :-

1. Hari Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and
others, reported in 2005 (5) AWC 4939

2.
Masiuddin
Vs.
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad
and
another reported in 1972 A.L.J. 573

3. Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District
Magistrate Basti and others reported in
1978
Allahabad
Weekly
Cases,
122,
(D.B.)

4. Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in 1984 AWC 145
(FB)
2 All. M/S Modi Industries Ltd., Distt. Ghaziabad Vs. Prescribed Officer , Labour Court, Distt. Agra & Anr.
533
5. Ilam Singh v. Commissioner, Meerut Division
and others [1987 ALL. L.J. 416]

6. Habib v. State of U.P. and others [2002 (44)
ACC 783]

7. Satish Singh v. District Magistrate, Sultanpur
2009 (4) ADJ 33 (LB)

8. Vishal Varshney Vs. State of U.P. and
another [2009 (75) ALR 593]

9. Jageshwar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2009
(67) Allahabad Criminal Cases 157

10. Thakur Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported 2013(31) LCD 1460 (LB)

11. Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate,
Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD 905]

12. Chandrabali Tewari v. The Commissioner,
Faizabad [2014 (32) LCD 1696]

13. Ghanshyam Gupta v. State of U.P. and
others [2016 (34) LCD 3035]

14. Jogendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others
[2018 (8) ADJ 871]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. I have heard Sri Akash Gupta
holding brief of Sri T.S. Dabas, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh
Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
2.1.2003,
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Rampur in Case No. 397 of
1999 under Section 17 of the Arms Act,
1959, (State Vs. Ram Prasad) (Annexure-4
to the writ petition) by which the
petitioner's
Fire
Arms
Licence
No.
1332/TT of double-barrel gun No. 1595
was cancelled. The appellate order dated
24.8.2006 passed by the Commissioner,
Moradabad
Mandal,
Moradabad
dismissing the petitioner's Appeal No.
26/02-03 under Section 18 of The Arms
Act, 1959 (Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P.)
District Rampur (Annexure-6 to the writ
petition) is also under challenge.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case
are that the petitioner was granted licence
No. 1332/TT of double-barrel gun on
22.8.1997. A criminal case, bearing Crime
Case No. 181 of 1999 under Sections 323,
504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) of The
Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.
Milak, District Rampur, was registered
against the petitioner. In view thereof, the
police of Police Station-Milak submitted a
report dated 20.7.1999 to the District
Magistrate/Collector,
Rampur
recommending
cancellation
of
the
petitioner's fire arms licence, as it was not
in the public interest that the fire arm
remain with the petitioner.

4. A show cause notice dated
10.8.1999 was issued to the petitioner as to
why his fire arm licence be not cancelled
on the aforesaid ground of pendency of
criminal case.

5. The petitioner filed reply to the
show cause notice, that the petitioner did
not misuse the fire arm and the Criminal
Case No. 181 of 1999 was lodged due to
partybandi in the village, which was
pending in the court. The fire arm licence
was not liable to be cancelled and the
show
cause
notice
deserved
to
be
withdrawn.

6. The District Magistrate, Rampur
after considering the petitioner's reply, by
order dated 2.1.2003 cancelled fire arm
licence on the ground that in view of the
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pendency of the criminal case against the
petitioner and considering the police
reports dated 5.7.1999 and 8.10.2000, it
was necessary to cancel the fire arm
licence in public interest and public
security.

7. After the order of cancellation
dated
2.1.2003,
the
petitioner
was
acquitted in Session Trial No. 559 of 2000,
arising out of Crime Case No. 181 of 1999
under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 by judgment dated
17.1.2003
passed
by
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2,
Rampur.

8. The petitioner filed appeal No. 26/0203 (Rram Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) under
Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 challenging
the order of cancellation of fire arm licence
dated 2.1.2003, before the Commissioner,
Moradabad
Region,
Moradabad.
The
petitioner filed copy of the order of his
acquittal dated 17.1.2003 in the aforesaid
appeal.

9. The Commissioner, Moradabad
Region, Moradabad dismissed the petitioner's
appeal by order dated 24.8.2006 and affirmed
the order of cancellation dated 2.1.2003, taking
the same view as in the order dated 2.1.2003
based on the police report that if the licence
was restored, the petitioner will misuse the fire
arm and terrorise the person of weaker
sections. With respect to the judgment of
acquittal dated 17.1.2003, it held that the
petitioner was acquitted as the witnesses
became
hostile
and
there
was
some
compromise between the accused and the
victim.

10. The present petition has been filed
challenging
the
aforesaid
orders
dated
24.8.2006 and 2.1.2003.

11. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that mere pendency
of a criminal case was no ground to cancel the
petitioner's fire arm licence. He submits that at
the time when the order dated 2.1.2003
cancelling the fire arm licence was passed the
criminal case was pending but after the order
dated 2.1.2003, the petitioner was acquitted in
the criminal case by judgment of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2,
Rampur and in view of the petitioner's
acquittal, the appellate authority ought to have
set aside the order of cancellation. The
petitioner has no previous criminal history and
in Crime Case No. 181 of 1999, the fire arm
was not involved.

12. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in Hari Prasad Vs.
State of U.P. and others, reported in 2005
(5) AWC 4939 (Allahabad).

13. On the other hand the learned
Standing Counsel has argued that the order
of cancellation was passed on the ground
of pendency of the criminal case and even
after acquittal, in view of the police reports
dated 26.7.1999 and 8.10.2000, to the
effect that if the fire arm licence was
restored the petitioner would extend threat
to the weaker sections and misuse the fire
arm, the impugned orders deserve to be
maintained.

14.

I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsels for the parties and have perused
the records.
2 All. M/S Modi Industries Ltd., Distt. Ghaziabad Vs. Prescribed Officer , Labour Court, Distt. Agra & Anr.
535

15. Perusal of the impugned order
dated 2.1.2003 passed by the District
Magistrate shows that the fire arm licence
has been cancelled on the ground that
Criminal Case No. 181 of 1999 under
Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section
3(1) (x) of The Schedule Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 was pending against the
petitioner and in view thereof the police
report was submitted that if the licence
was restored the petitioner might misuse
the fire arm. A perusal of the impugned
appellate order also shows that the appeal
has been dismissed on the ground of the
police reports that the fire arm might be
misused, although the petitioner was later
on acquitted in the criminal case on
17.1.2003.

16. The matter which requires
consideration is, whether on the ground of
pendency of the criminal case the
petitioner's fire arm licence could be
cancelled and his appeal could be
dismissed, notwithstanding his acquittal on
17.1.2003. It also requires consideration if
the ground in the impugned orders that if
the petitioner's fire arm licence remain
with the petitioner, it would not be in the
public interest and public security, are
justified for cancellation and based on
substantial material.

17. Section 17 of the Arms Act,
1959, deals with variation, suspension and
revocation of the fire arm licence. Section
17 is reproduced as under:

"17. Variation, suspension and
revocation of licences.--

(1) The licensing authority may
vary the conditions subject to which a
licence has been granted except such of
them as have been prescribed and may for
that purpose require the licence-holder by
notice in writing to deliver-up the licence
to it within such time as may be specified
in the notice.

(2) The licensing authority may,
on the application of the holder of a
licence, also vary the conditions of the
licence except such of them as have been
prescribed.

(3) The licensing authority may
by order in writing suspend a licence for
such period as it thinks fit or revoke a
licence--

(a) if the licensing authority is
satisfied that the holder of the licence is
prohibited by this Act or by any other law
for the time being in force, from acquiring,
having in his possession or carrying any
arms or ammunition, or is of unsound
mind, or is for any reason unfit for a
licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority
deems it necessary for the security of the
public peace or for public safety to
suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained by
the suppression of material information or
on the basis of wrong information
provided by the holder of the licence or
any other person on his behalf at the time
of applying for it; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the
licence has been contravened; or

(e) if the holder of the licence
has failed to comply with a notice under
sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up
the licence.

(4) The licensing authority may
also revoke a licence on the application of
the holder thereof.

(5) Where the licensing authority
makes an order varying a licence under
sub-section (1) or an order suspending or
revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it
shall record in writing the reasons
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefor and furnish to the holder of the
licence on demand a brief statement of the
same unless in any case the licensing
authority is of the opinion that it will not
be in the public interest to furnish such
statement.

(6) The authority to whom the
licensing authority is subordinate may by
order in writing suspend or revoke a
licence on any ground on which it may be
suspended or revoked by the licensing
authority; and the foregoing provisions of
this section shall, as far as may be, apply
in relation to the suspension or revocation
of a licence by such authority.

(7) A court convicting the holder
of a licence of any offence under this Act
or the rules made thereunder may also
suspend or revoke the licence:
Provided that if the conviction is set aside
on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or
revocation shall become void.

(8) An order of suspension or
revocation under sub-section (7) may also
be made by an appellate court or by the
High Court when exercising its powers of
revision.

(9) The Central Government
may, by order in the Official Gazette,
suspend or revoke or direct any licensing
authority to suspend or revoke all or any
licences granted under this Act throughout
India or any part thereof.

(10) On the suspension or
revocation of a licence under this section
the holder thereof shall without delay
surrender the licence to the authority by
whom it has been suspended or revoked or
to such other authority as may be specified
in this behalf in the order of suspension or
revocation.

18. A bare reading of Section 17 (3)
of the Arms Act makes it evident that the
licencing authority may by order in writing
suspend a licence for such period as he
things fit or revoke a licence; (b) if the
licencing authority deems it necessary for
the security of public peace or for public
safety to suspend or revoke the licence.
These two expressions "Security of public
peace" and "for public safety" are of
utmost
importance.
The
licencing
authority must be satisfied of the existence
of these pre conditions.

19.

In
Masiuddin
Vs.
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad and another reported in 1972
A.L.J. 573 this Court held in paragraph
Nos. 4 and 7 as under:

"4. After a license is granted, the
right to hold the license and possess a gun
is a valuable individual right in a free
country. The security of public peace and
public safety is a valuable social interest.
Section 17 shows that Parliament had
decided that neither of the two valuable
interests should unduly impinge on the
other Section 17 seeks to establish a fair
equilibrium between the two contending
interests. It says: Hear the licensee first;
and then cancel the license "if necessary
for the security of the public peace or for
public safety". True, there is no express
provision for hearing. True, there is no
express provision for hearing. But the
nature of the right affected, the language
of Sec. 17, the grounds for cancellation,
the requirement of a reasoned order and
the right of appeal plainly implicate a fair
hearing procedure. Jai Narain Rai v.
District Magistrate, Azamgarh. While
cancelling
a
licence,
the
District
Magistrate
acts
as
a
quasi-judicial
authority.

7. A license may be cancelled,
inter alia on the ground that it is
"necessary for the security of the public
2 All. M/S Modi Industries Ltd., Distt. Ghaziabad Vs. Prescribed Officer , Labour Court, Distt. Agra & Anr.
537
peace or for public safety" to do so. The
District Magistrate has not recorded a
finding that it was necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public
safety to revoke the license. The mere
existence of enmity between a licensee and
another person would not establish the
''necessary' connection with security of
public peace or public safety. There
should be something more than mere
enmity. There should be some evidence of
the provocative utterances of the licensee
or of his suspicious movements or of his
criminal
designs
and
conspiracy
in
reinforcement of the evidence of enmity. It
is not possible to give an exhaustive list of
facts and circumstances from which an
inference of threat to public security or
public peace may be deduced. The District
Magistrate will have to take a decision on
the facts of each case. But in the instant
case there is nothing in his order to
indicate that it was necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public
safety to cancel the license of the
petitioner. Mere enmity is not sufficient."

20. Thus, in Masiuddin's case (supra) it
was held that a license may be cancelled, inter
alia on the ground that it is necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public
safety, to do so. Mere existence of enmity
between the licensee and another person would
not establish the necessary connection with
security of public peace or public safety.

21. In Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The
District Magistrate Basti and others
reported in 1978 Allahabad Weekly Cases,
122, (D.B.) this Court after considering
Masiuddin case (supra) held in paragraph 4
which is reproduced as under:

4. "Learned Counsel for the
petitioner contended that, while there was
material before the licencing authority, viz., the
District Magistrate, to show that some reports
had been lodged against the petitioner, there
was neither any material to warrant a
conclusion that it was necessary to cancel the
licence for security of public peace or public
safety nor was a finding to that effect recorded.
Learned Counel referred us to a decision of
this Court in case of Masi Uddin v.
Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 572,
where this Court held:

"A licence may be cancelled, inter
alia, on the ground that it is "necessary for the
security of public peace or for public safety, to
do so. The District Magistrate has not
recorded a finding that it was necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public safety
to revoke the licend. The mere existence of
enmity between a licencee and another person
would not establish the "necessary" connection
with security of the public peace or public
safety."

In case before us also the
District Magistrate has not recorded
any finding that it was necessary to
cancel the licence for the security of
public peace or for public safety. All
that he has done is to have referred to
some applications and reports lodged
against the petitioner. The mere fact
that some reports had been lodged
against the petitioner could not form
basis for cancelling the licence. The
order passed by the District Magistrate
and that passed by the Commissioner
cannot, therefore, be upheld on the
basis
of
any
thing
contained
in
Sections 17(3) (b) of the Act"

22. In Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in
1984 AWC 145 (FB), after noticing
the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the
Arms Act the Full Bench in paragraph
5 held as follows:
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"A perusal of abovementioned
provisions indicates that the licensing
authority has been given the power to
suspend or revoe an arms licence only if
any of the conditions mentioned in subclauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of
Section 17 of Act exists." sub section (5) of
Section 17 makes it obligatory upon the
licensing authority to, while passing the
order
revoking/suspending
an
arms
licence, record in writing the reasons
therefore and to, on demand, furnish a
brief statement thereof to the holder of the
license unless it considers that it will not
be in the public interest to do so."

In paragraph-9 it has been
emphasised as under:-

"it is true that in order to
revoke/suspend an arms licence, the
licensing authority has necessarily to
come to the conclusion that the facts
justifying revocation/suspension of licence
mentioned in grounds (a) to (e) of section
17 exist"

23. In Ilam Singh v. Commissioner,
Meerut Division and others [1987 ALL.
L.J. 416] this Court held that under
Section 17(3) (b) the licencing authority
may suspend or revoke a licence if it
becomes necessary for the security of
public peace or public safety. In this case
no report was lodged against the licensee
indicating that he had used the gun in the
incident which led to the breach of public
peace or public safety. It was held that
there must be some positive incident in
which the petitioner participated and used
his gun which led to breach of public
peace or public safety and in the absence
of the use of the gun by the licencee
against the security of public peace or
public safety the licence of the gun could
not be suspended or revoked. The relevant
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment in Ilam
Singh (supra) are being reproduced as
under:

"4. Having heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner I am of the
view that the submissions raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner
cannot be said to be without substance.
Section 17(3) (b) of the Arms Act
enacts that licensing authority may by
order in writing suspend a licence or
revoke
the
same
if
it
becomes
necessary for the security of public
peace or the public safety. When once
a person has been granted a licence
and he acquires a gun, it becomes one
of his properties. In the present case
no incident of breach of security of the
public peace or public sfety at the
behest of the petitioner has been
pointed out. Even no report was lodged
against the petitioner indicating that
he used his gun in the incident which
led to the breach of public peace or
public
safety.
Even
though
some
reports might have been lodged but
that could not be said to be a sufficient
reason to cancel the licence."

5.
There
must
be
some
positive
incident
in
which
the
petitioner participated and used his
gun which led to the breach of the
public peace or public safety. In the
absence of the use of the gun by the
petitioner against the security of public
peace or public safety the licence of
the gun of the petitioner was not liable
either to be suspended or revoked. The
licensing authority as well as the
Commissioner committed errors on the
face of the record in cancelling the
licence of the gun held by the
petitioner in utter disregard of the
provisions of Section 17 (3) (b) of the
Arms Act. In view of these facts the
2 All. M/S Modi Industries Ltd., Distt. Ghaziabad Vs. Prescribed Officer , Labour Court, Distt. Agra & Anr.
539
impugned orders cannot be sustained
and deserves to be quashed."

24. In Habib v. State of U.P. and
others [2002 (44) ACC 783] this Court
held that mere involvement in a criminal
case cannot in any way affect the public
security or public interest and the order
cancelling or revoking licence of fire arm
was not justified. Paragraph 3 of this
judgment reads as under:

"3. The question as to whether
mere involvement in a criminal case or
pendency of a criminal case can be a
ground for revocation of the licence under
Arms Act, has been dealt with by a
Division Bench of this court reported in
Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District
Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the
Division Bench relying upon the earlier
decision reported in Masi Uddin v.
Commissioner, Allahabad, found that
mere involvement in criminal case cannot
in any way affect the public security or
public interest and the order cancelling or
revoking the licence of fire arm has been
set aside."

25. In Satish Singh v. District
Magistrate, Sultanpur 2009 (4) ADJ 33
(LB), this Court elaborately explained
what is detrimental to the security of the
public peace or public safety and held that
mere involvement in criminal case cannot
in any way affect the public security or
public interest. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of
Satish Singh case (supra) are being
reproduced as under:

"6. A plain reading of section 17
indicates that the arms licence can be
cancelled or suspended on the ground that
the licensing authority deems it necessary
for security of the public peace or the
public safety. In the present case, while
passing the impugned order, neither the
District Magistrate nor the appellate
authority has recorded the finding as to
how and under what circumstance, the
possession
of
arms
licence
by
the
petitioner, is detrimental to the public
peace or the public security and safety.
Merely because criminal case is pending
more so, does not seem to attract the
provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act.
To attract the provisions of section 17 of
the Arms Act with regard to public peace,
security and safety it shall always be
incumbent on the authorities to record a
finding
that
how,
under
what
circumstances and what manner, the
possession of arms licence shall be
detrimental to public peace, safety and
security. In absence of such finding merely
on the ground that a criminal case is
pending
without
any
mitigating
circumstances with regard to endanger of
public peace, safety and security, the
provisions contained under Section 17 of
the Arms Act, shall not satisfy.

7. Needless to say that right to
life and liberty are guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the arms licences are granted for personal
safety and security after due inquiry by the
authorities
in
accordance
with
the
provisions contained in Arms Act, 1959.
The provisions of section 17 of the Arms
Act
with
regard
to
suspension
or
cancellation of arms licence cannot be
invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner.
The provisions contained under Section 17
of the Arms Act should be construed
strictly and not liberally. The conditions
provided therein, should be satisfied by the
authorities before proceeding ahead to
cancel or suspend an arms licence. We
may take notice of the fact that any reason
whatsoever, the crime rate is raising day
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by day. The Government is not in a
position to provide security to each and
every person individually. Right to possess
arms is statutory right but right to life and
liberty is fundamental guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Corollary to it, it is citizen's right to
possess firearms for their personal safety
to save their family from miscreants. It is
often said that ordinarily in a civilised
society, only civilised persons require
arms licence for their safety and security
and not the criminals. Of course, in case
the government feels that arms licence are
abused for oblique motive or criminal
activities, then appropriate measures may
be adopted to check such mal-practice.
But arms licence should not be suspended
in a routine manner mechanically, without
application of mind and keeping in view
the letter and spirit of Section 17 of the
Arms Act."

26. In the case of Satish (supra) due
to accidental firing some one was killed.
This court held that the same shall not
amount to breach of public peace or
tranquility. This Court also held that the
authorities have to record finding based on
material evidence with regard to breach of
public peace and safety while cancelling
the arms licence.

27. In Vishal Varshney Vs. State of
U.P. and another [2009 (75) ALR 593]
this Court held that cancellation of a fire
arm licence merely on the ground of
apprehension or likelihood of misuse of
fire arm is illegal. In Jageshwar Vs. State
of U.P. and others 2009 (67) Allahabad
Criminal Cases 157 this court held that in
view of the settled law the licence under
the Arms Act cannot be suspended on the
ground of mere involvement in a criminal
case or criminal trial or on the basis of
mere apprehension of misuse of fire arm
by the licensee.

28. In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported 2013(31) LCD
1460 (LB) this Court after referring to the
earlier pronouncements in the case of Ram
Murli
Madhukar
Vs.
District
Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD
905] and Habib Vs. State of U.P., 2002
ACC 783, held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as
follows:

"10. "Public peace" or ''public
safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance
of law and order public safety means
safety of the public at large and not safety
of few persons only and before passing of
the order of cancellation of arm license as
per Section 17 (3) of the Act the Licensing
Authority is under an obligation to apply
his mind to the question as to whether
there was eminent danger to public peace
and safety involved in the case in view of
the judgment given by this court in the
case of Ram Murli Madhukar v. District
Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 916) LCD 905],
wherein it has been held that license can
not be suspended or revoked on the
ground of public interest (Jan-hit) merely
on the registration of an F.I.R. and
pendency of a criminal case."

11. Further, this Court in the
case of Habib v. State of U.P. 2002 ACC
783 held as under:

"The question as to whether
mere Involvement in a criminal case or
pendency of a criminal case can be a
ground for revocation of the licence under
Arms Act, has been dealt with by a
Division Bench of this Court in Sheo
prasad Misra Vs. District Magistrate,
Basti and Others, 1978 AWC 122, wherein
the Division Bench relying upon the
earlier decision in Masi Uddin Vs.
2 All. M/S Modi Industries Ltd., Distt. Ghaziabad Vs. Prescribed Officer , Labour Court, Distt. Agra & Anr.
541
Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573,
found that mere involvement in criminal
case cannot, in any way, affect the public
security or public interest and the order
cancelling or revoking the licence of fire
arm has been set aside. The present
impugned orders also suffer from the same
infirmity as was pointed out by the
Division Bench in the above mentioned
cases. I am in full agreement with the view
taken by the Division Bench that these
orders cannot be sustained and deserves to
be quashed and are hereby quashed.

There is yet another reason that
during the pendency of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has been acquitted
from the aforesaid criminal case and at
present there is neither any case pending,
nor any conviction has been attributed to
the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure
SA-I and II to the supplementary affidavit
filed by the petitioner. In this view of the
matter, the petitioner is entitled to have the
fire-arm licence."

29. Thus, it has been held by this
Court that "Public peace" or "public
safety" do not mean ordinary disturbance
of law and order. Public safety means
safety of the public at large and not safety
of few persons only. The Licensing
Authority is under an obligation to apply
his mind to the question as to whether
there was eminent danger to public peace
and public safety before passing the order
under Section 17 (3) of the Act.

30. In Mewalal @ Kunnu v.
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad and another [2014 (32) LCD
576] it was held that the licence cannot be
refused/suspended/cancelled
merely
because there is ordinary breach of law
and order. Paragraph 13, 14 and 16 of the
said judgment read as under:

"13. In the case of Rama
Kushwaha v. State of U.P. & others,
reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1045 it has
been held that a license cannot be
refused/suspended/cancelled
merely
because there is an ordinary breach of law
and order.

14. The relevant paras of the
aforesaid judgment are being reproduced
hereinunder:

8.
Relying
upon
Ganesh
Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate
Almora; AIR 1993 All, 291, learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that this
court has held in clear words that a
licence
can
not
be
refused/suspended/cancelled
merely
because there is an ordinary breach of law
and order.

9. ''Public peace' or ''public
safety' do not mean ordinary disturbance
of law and order public safety means
safety of the public at larger and not safety
of few persons only. Before passing of the
order in exercise of power conferred under
Section 17 (3) of the Act the Licensing
Authority is under an obligation to apply
his mind to the question as to whether
there was eminent danger to public peace
and safety involved in the case.

10. In Ram Murli Madhukar v.
District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16)
LCD 905], this Court has held that licence
cannot be suspended or revoked on the
ground of public interest (Janhit).

11. 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
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad
Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti
and others, wherein the Division Bench
relying upon the earlier decision of
Msiuddin 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 followed in Habib Vs. Staate
of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783, Ram
Sanehi Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan
Division, Gonda and another.

16. In the case of Rajendra
Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division,
Lucknow and others, reported in 2011 (29)
LCD 1041 ''Public Peace' or ''public
Safety' has been defined. The relevant
paras 6 and 7 read as under:

6. ''Public peace' or ''public
safety' do not mean ordinary disturbance
of law and order public safety means
safety of the public at large and not safety
of few persons only. Before passing of the
order in exercise of power conferred under
Section 17 (3) of the Act the Licensing
Authority is under an obligation to apply
his mind to the question as to whether
there was eminent danger to public peace
annd safety involved in the case.

7. it is well settled in law that
mere pendency of criminal case or
apprehension of abuse of arms act are not
sufficient ground 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
cae or pendency of a criminal case can be
a ground for revocation of licence under
Arms Act, has been dealth with by a
Division Bench of this court Sheo Prasad
Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti
and others, wherein the Division Bench
relying 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 followed in Habib v. State of
U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783."

31. In Chandrabali Tewari v. The
Commissioner, Faizabad [2014 (32)
LCD 1696] this Court again held that
mere pendency of criminal case is no
ground to cancel fire arm licence. It has
also been held that as in that case there
were no allegations that the licenced gun
was ever taken out by the licensee and was
used in the act, the order cancelling
petitioner's fire arm licence was quashed.
Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is being
reproduced as under:

"12. In the case reported in
[2012 (79) ACC 824] Allahabad High
Court, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30724
of 1999 His Lordship has observed as
follows:

"However, the impugned order
nowhere indicates that the petitioner had
used his licensed firearm or for that matter
any firearm at all. The allegation in the
impugned order is of physical assault
(without use of firearm) and use of abusive
language. Such an allegation, in my
opinion cannot be the foundation of an
impression by the District Magistrate that
the petitioner, if allowed to retain his
firearm license, would be a threat to future
public peace and order."

32. In Ghanshyam Gupta v. State
of U.P. and others [2016 (34) LCD 3035]
this Court has again held that the
necessary
ingredients
to
invoke
jurisdiction of the licencing authority in
terms of Section 17 were clearly lacking
and no finding had been returned on the
2 All. M/S Modi Industries Ltd., Distt. Ghaziabad Vs. Prescribed Officer , Labour Court, Distt. Agra & Anr.
543
basis of materials produced in that regard
by the licencing authority, which must
justify passing of the order of cancellation.
Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is being
quoted as under:

"9. In a recent decision of
Lucknow Bench of this court in Surya
Narain Mishra v. Stae of U.P. and others,
reported in 2015 (7) ADJ 510, similar
view has been taken by this Court relying
upon subsequent decisions. Para-14 of the
judgment is reproduced:

"14. In the case of Raj Kumar
Verma v. State of U.P., 2013 (80) ACC
231 this court in paragraph No.3 held as
under:-

"The ground for issue of showcause notice, suspension and ultimately
cancellation of the licence is that one and
precisely one criminal case was registered
against
the
petitioner.
The
District
Magistrate
has
also
held
that
the
petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He
has gone further to observe that if the
licence remained intact, the petitioner,
may disturb public peace and tranquility.
The same findings have been given by the
Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that
this Court is repeating the law of the land,
but the deaf ears of the administrative
officers do not ready to succumb the law of
the land. The settled law is that mere
involvement in a criminal case without any
finding that involvement in such criminal
case shall be detrimental to public peace
and tranqulity shall not create the ground
for the cancellation of Armed Licence. In
Ram Suchi v. Commissioner, Devipatan
Division reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1643,
it was held that this law was relied upon in
Balram Singh Vs. Satate of U.P. 2006 (24)
LCD 1359. Mere apprehension without
substance is simply an opinion which has
no legs to stand. Personal whims are not
allowed to be reflected while acting as a
public servant."

33. In Jogendra Singh vs. State of
U.P. and others [2018 (8) ADJ 871] this
Court clearly held that for cancellation of a
fire arm licence there had to be a definite
finding that the possession of fire arm with
the licensee was endangering public peace
and public safety. In the absence of such
finding it could safely be presumed that
the licencing authority had erred in
cancelling the fire arm licence. This Court
also noticed that the State Government had
issued guidelines which were circulated to
all the District Magistrates to follow the
same
in
the
matters
of
cancellation/revocation of fire arm licence.
The guidelines were reproduced as under:-

स्प ड पोस्ट/फैक्स/ई-मेल

सोंख्याः 1/2018/जन-102-छ पु0-52018-408/17

प्रेिक-

भगवान स्वरूप

सकचव

उत्तर प्रिेि िासन।

सेवा में,

समस्त कजला मकजस्टरट

उत्तर प्रिेि।

गृह (पुकलस) लिनऊ किनाोंकः

अनुभाग-5 07 फरवर 2018

कवियः- व्यन्धक्तगत िस्त लाइसेंसो
के अनुज्ञन्धियोों मे पररवतमन-पररवधमन, उनके
कनलम्बन एवों प्रकतसोंहरण के सोंबोंध मे, कििा
कनिेि।

महोिय,

आयुध अकधकनयम, 1959 क धारा -
17 मे अनुज्ञन्धियोों मे पररवतमन-पररवधमन, उनके
कनलम्बन एवों प्रकतसोंहरण के सोंबोंध मे व्यवथिा
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ि गय है। उपरोक्त के अकतररक्त मा0 सवोच्च
न्यायालय एवों मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भ
समयकि् पर तत्सम्बि मे कवस्तश्त आिेि
पाररत ककये गये है। गृह (पुकलस) अनुभाग-5 के
िासनािेि
सोंख्या-271
आर/छः-पु0-5-91573/01, किनाोंक 25.02.1991 द्वारा आग्नेयास्त्र
लाइसेंसोों
का
कनलम्बन/कनरस्त करण
व
िासनािेि सोंख्या-3017 आर/छः-पु0-5-99,
किनाोंक 15.05.1999 द्वारा व्यन्धक्तगत िस्त्र
लाइसेंस(R) का िुरूप्रयोग रोकने के सोंबोंध मे
कनिेि किये गये है।

2.