# Ram Vilas v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 776
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-13
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1562 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-vilas-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50621
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Arms Act, 1959- Sections
17(3)
&
17(7)
-
Suspension
and
revocation of licences - If the conviction is
set aside on appeal or otherwise, the
suspension or revocation shall become
void - Cancellation of the arms license -
Mere pendency of the criminal case or the
apprehension that the petitioner may be
involved in future in any other criminal
case cannot be a ground for cancellation
of the arms license under the Arms Act,
1959, unless and until a clear-cut finding
is recorded by the Competent Authorities
that the possession of the firearm caused
a threat to public peace and is a danger to
the safety of human beings. (Para 10)
B. Arms Act, 1959, Ss 17(3), 17(7) -
Cancellation of the arms license - The
petitioner was involved in only one
criminal case and was finally acquitted by
order dated 23.07.2021. Perusal of the
order of acquittal does not show the use
of a firearm. As provided u/s 17(7), if the
conviction is set aside on appeal or
otherwise, the suspension or revocation
shall become void. Court held that after
acquittal, the very basis of the order of
cancellation vanished; the petitioner is
7 All. Ram Vilas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
777
entitled to the restoration of his firearm
license. (Para 9, 15)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been stated that the learned counsel for the
appellant had referred to those judgments
during his submissions.

27. Copies of Case-laws are not required
to be annexed with the Writ Petition or the
Memo of Appeal. In any case, while deciding
a case, the Court is required to consider the
submission made by the learned Counsel for
the parties and the case-laws placed by them
before the Court in support of their
submissions. The Court is not expected to go
through the entire record to find out whether
the petitioner or the appellant has brought on
record a copy of any case-law, although the
same has not been relied upon by the learned
counsel during his submissions.

28. Even if Rajendra Prasad Tiwari and
Md. Usman Ansari had been granted the
benefit of the judgment and order dated
19.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 4031
(S/S) of 2001 although they had not worked
for a single day, the judgments passed in their
cases will not be binding precedents unless the
question of eligibility of the persons for being
paid the salary for the period they had not
worked was decided in those judgments,
because it is well settled law of precedents that
only the ratio of a judgment is binding as a
precedent, not the order which is passed in a
case.

29. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of
the considered view that the judgment and
order dated 17.01.2023 dismissing the Special
Appeal does not suffer from any error, much
less an error which is apparent on the face of
the record.

30. The review application lacks
merits
and
the
same
is
accordingly
dismissed. However, there will be no order
as to costs.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 776
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 1562 of 2020

Ram Vilas ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
A. Criminal Law -Arms Act, 1959- Sections
17(3)
&
17(7)
-
Suspension
and
revocation of licences - If the conviction is
set aside on appeal or otherwise, the
suspension or revocation shall become
void - Cancellation of the arms license -
Mere pendency of the criminal case or the
apprehension that the petitioner may be
involved in future in any other criminal
case cannot be a ground for cancellation
of the arms license under the Arms Act,
1959, unless and until a clear-cut finding
is recorded by the Competent Authorities
that the possession of the firearm caused
a threat to public peace and is a danger to
the safety of human beings. (Para 10)
B. Arms Act, 1959, Ss 17(3), 17(7) -
Cancellation of the arms license - The
petitioner was involved in only one
criminal case and was finally acquitted by
order dated 23.07.2021. Perusal of the
order of acquittal does not show the use
of a firearm. As provided u/s 17(7), if the
conviction is set aside on appeal or
otherwise, the suspension or revocation
shall become void. Court held that after
acquittal, the very basis of the order of
cancellation vanished; the petitioner is
7 All. Ram Vilas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
777
entitled to the restoration of his firearm
license. (Para 9, 15)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Indra Pratap @ Ram Pratap Vs St. of U.P.
through Principal Secretary Home Lucknow &
ors., Misc. Single No. 28781 of 2017, decided on
15.02.2019
2. Ram Prasad Vs Commissioner & ors., Writ-C
No. 56378 of 2006, decided on 07.02.2020
3. Ajay Jayawant Bhosale Vs. The Commissioner
of Police & ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 594
of 2013, decided on 15.07.2016
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents-State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner with a prayer to quash the
order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the
respondent no.2 in case No.377/2019
(computerized
case
No.C201918000000377) as well as the
order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the
respondent no.3 in appeal no.225/2017
(Computerized Case No.D201718210225).

3. The crux of the matter is that the
petitioner,
who
had
firearms
license
bearing no.5010 was served with show
cause notice dated 12.07.2012 on the
ground that there was a first information
report registered against the petitioner
bearing Case Crime No.217 of 2012, under
Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Nidhauli
Kala, District-Etah. There was another first
information report registered against the
petitioner in Case Crime No.105/2011,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504,
506,324 IPC, Police Station-Nidhauli Kala,
District-Etah, wherein after investigation,
final report has been submitted by the
Investigating Officer. On 02.05.2017, the
petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid
show cause notice dated 12.07.2012 that he
had been falsely implicated in the said case
by
the
police
party
and,
therefore,
proceedings initiated for cancellation of
firearms license should be dropped. After
considering the reply of the petitioner, the
respondent no.3 directed the respondent
no.5 to submit afresh report. The report has
been
submitted
on
01.08.2017
by
respondent no.5, on the basis of which,
without considering the reply of the
petitioner, firearms license of the petitioner
was cancelled vide order dated 03.08.2018
on the ground that criminal case is pending
against him. Appeal against the aforesaid
order has also been rejected by the
respondent
no.2
vide
order
dated
02.08.2019. Hence the present petition has
been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that except the present criminal
case crime no. 217 of 2012, there is no
other case registered against the petitioner
nor, he has ever been found to be guilty in
criminal case at that point of time. He
further submits that without considering the
fact that during course of trial, son of the
deceased has given statement before the
trial court that his father has not been shot
by the petitioner and the ballistic report
also does not prove that the fire arms were
used by the petitioner, the fire arms license
has been cancelled. He further submits that
the petitioner has already been acquitted in
the criminal case, on the basis of which,
fire arms license has been cancelled.
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that merely because a
criminal case is pending, the provisions of
Section 17 of the Arms Act would not be
attracted and in the present case, as the
petitioner has already been acquitted in
criminal case lodged against him, therefore,
the impugned orders may be set aside. In
support of his contention, he has relied
upon the judgment of Bombay High Court
in the case of Ajay Jayawant Bhosale vs.
The Commissioner of Police and Ors.

6. Per contra, the argument of learned
Standing Counsel is that once the petitioner
has been found to be implicated in criminal
case, it was sufficient enough for the
District
Magistrate
to
record
his
satisfaction. However, learned Standing
Counsel could not dispute the factual
position that the petitioner has been
acquitted in the said criminal case.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and their arguments advanced
across the bar and having perused the
record, I find that the appellate authority
had failed to consider the order and
judgment of acquittal passed in favour of
the petitioner in the said criminal case and
even otherwise I find that except the
criminal case in question in which
petitioner stood acquitted, there is no such
case registered against him and, therefore,
no inference can be drawn that the
petitioner was having criminal antecedents.

8. From perusal of Section 17(3) and
Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959, it is
crystal clear that not a single ground of
Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is
applicable in the case of the petitioner,
undisputedly petitioner was involved only
in one criminal case and the respondents
could not bring on record any material to
show that the petitioner was involved in
any other criminal case except the present
one. It is also relevant to mention here that
in sole criminal case, petitioner has already
been acquitted by the concerned court
below. As per proviso of Section 17(7) of
the Arms Act, 19592 which providing that
if the conviction is set aside in appeal or
otherwise, the suspension or revocation
shall become void. It would be relevant to
quote Section 17(3) and 17(7) of "The Act,
1959", which reads as follows:-

"Section 17(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 subsection (1) requiring him to deliver-up the
licence."

"Section
17(7)-
A
court
convicting the holder of a licence of any
offence under this Act or the rules made
7 All. Ram Vilas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
779
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."

9. In the facts of the present case, this
Court comes to the conclusion that none of
the ground mentioned in section 17(3) of
"The Act, 1959", is applicable in the
petitioner case. The petitioner was involved
in only one criminal case and was finally
acquitted by order dated 23.07.2021,
further as provided under section 17(7) of
"The Act, 1959", if the conviction is set
aside
on
appeal
or
otherwise,
the
suspension or revocation shall became
void, therefore in that case too, the
petitioner is entitled for restoration of his
fire
arm
license
by
the
Authority
concerned, in view of the above, the
impugned orders are not sustainable in the
eyes of law.

10. It is undoubtedly to say that
merely pendency of the criminal case or
with the apprehension that the petitioner
may be involved in future in any other
criminal case cannot be a ground for
cancellation of the arms license under the
Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear cut
finding is recorded by the Competent
Authorities that the possession of the fire
arms caused threatening of the public peace
and is danger for the safety of human
being. The Competent Authorities fail to
record any such finding in the impugned
orders.

11. In the counter affidavit filed by
learned Standing Counsel, there is no
denial about the fact that the petitioner has
already been acquitted in the criminal case
on the basis of which, fire arms license has
been cancelled. There is also nothing on
record to dispute the submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
there is no criminal antecedents and in
case, the petitioner is allowed to have fire
arms license, the same would not be
dangerous to public peace, safety and
security.

12. This Court finds that for
cancellation of a fire arm license, there had
to be a definite finding that the possession
of fire arm with the licensee was
endangering public peace and public safety.
The aforesaid has been dealt with by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner and
others.

13. 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:-

"स्पीड पोस्ट/िैक्स/ई-मेल

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

प्रेशक-

भगवान स्वरूप

सधचव

उत्तर प्रदेश शासन।

सेवा में,

समस्त जजला मजजस्रट

उत्तर प्रदेश।

गृह (पुललस) लखनऊ हदनाूंकः

अनुभाग-5 07 िरवरी 2018
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ववशयः- व्यजक्तगत शस्त लाइसेंसो
के अनुज्ञजततयों मे पररवतघन-पररवधघन, उनके
ननलम्बन एवूं प्रनतसूंहरण के सूंबूंध मे, हदशा
ननदेश।

महोदय,

आयुध अधधननयम, 1959 की धारा -
17 मे अनुज्ञजततयों मे पररवतघन-पररवधघन, उनके
ननलम्बन एवूं प्रनतसूंहरण के सूंबूंध मे व्यवस्र्ा
दी गयी है। उपरोक्त के अनतररक्त मा0 सवोच्च
न्यायालय एवूं मा0 उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भी
समयकश् पर तत्सम्बन्ध मे ववस्तश्त आदेश
पाररत फकये गये है। गृह (पुललस) अनुभाग-5 के
शासनादेश सूंख्या-271 आर/छः-पु0-5-91-573/01,
हदनाूंक 25.02.1991 द्वारा आग्नेयास्त्र लाइसेंसों
का ननलम्बन/ननरस्तीकरण व शासनादेश सूंख्या-
3017 आर/छः-पु0-5-99, हदनाूंक 15.05.1999
द्वारा व्यजक्तगत शस्त्र लाइसेंस(R) का दुरूप्रयोग
रोकने के सूंबूंध मे ननदेश हदये गये है।

2. उक्त के दृजश्टगत मुझे यह कहने
का ननदेश हुआ है फक व्यजक्तगत शस्त्र लाइसेसों
के अनुज्ञजततयों मे पररवतघन-पररवधघन, उनके
ननलम्बन
एवूं
प्रनतसूंहरण
के
सूंबूंध
में
ननम्नानुसार कायघवाही सुननजश्चत फकया जाय-

(1)
जजला
मजजस्रट/लाइसेलसग
प्राधधकारी ललखखत आदेश द्वारा अग्नेयास्त्र
अनुज्ञजतत का सुननजश्चत कालावधध के ललए
ननलजम्बत कर सकता है या अनुज्ञजतत को
प्रनतसूंहररत कर सकता है।

(2)
उपरोक्त
ननलम्बन/प्रनतसूंहरण
तभी
फकया
जाएगा
जब
जजला
मजजस्रट/लाइसेलसग प्राधधकारी को यह समाधान
हो जाए फक-

(क) अनुज्ञजततधारी फकसी ववधध के
अूंतगघत आयुध रखने हेतु प्रनतलशद्ध है या
ववकश्तधचत्त है या फकन्ही अन्य कारणों से
आयुध अधधननयम मे अनुज्ञजतत के अयोग्य है,
अर्वा

(ख) जब जजला मजजस्रट/लाइसेलसग
प्राधधकारी लोकशाूंनत की सुरक्षा या ''लोकक्षेत्र'' के
ललए अनुज्ञजतत को ननलजम्बत या प्रनतसूंहररत
करने के युजक्तयुक्त आधार पाता है, आवश्यक
समझता है अर्वा

(ग) जबफक यह प्रमाण हो फक
अनुज्ञजतत गलत जानकारी के आधार पर प्रातत
की गई है, अर्वा

(र्) जबफक अनुज्ञजतत की फकसी शतघ
का उकलूंर्न फकया गया है, अर्वा

(़ि) जबफक अनुज्ञजतत धारक को
अपना शस्त्र पररदत्त करने का ननदेश हदया गया
हो और उसके द्वारा शस्त्र का पररदान न फकया
गया हो।

(3) अनुज्ञजतत प्राधधकारी को अनूंत
समय के ललए शस्त्र अनुज्ञजतत ननलूंबबत अर्वा
प्रनतसूंहररत (ननरस्त) नहीूं करनी चाहहए।
अनुज्ञजतत के ननलम्बन अर्वा प्रनतसूंहरण की
अवधध सुननजश्चत होनी चाहहए।

(4) अनुज्ञजतत प्राधधकारी को लाइसेंस
ननलूंबबत अर्वा ननरस्त करने का अधधकार
आयुध अधधननयम की धा मजजस्टेaट रा 17 (3)
के अूंतगघत प्रदत्त है और उक्त कायघवाही करने
से प वघ अनुज्ञजततधारी को सुने जाने का अवसर
प्रदान फकया जाना आवश्यक है।

(5) अनुज्ञजतत प्राधधकारी मामले के
तथ्यों और पररजस्र्नतयों पर ववचार करते हुए
यहद यह उधचत पाते हैं फक प्रकरण में
तात्काललक प्रभाव से आयुध अनुज्ञजतत का
अनुज्ञजतत प्राधधकारी द्वारा पररदान फकया जाना
7 All. Ram Vilas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
781
आवश्यक है तो ऐसा करने का आदेश
अलभललखखत फकया जाये।

(6) मात्र फकसी आपराधधक मामले का
लजम्बत रहना शस्त्र अनुज्ञजतत ननरस्त/ननलजम्बत
करने का पयाघतत आधार नहीूं है। यहाॅ यह भी
स्पश्ट करना समीचीन है फक मात्र एक
आपराधधक प्रकरण के लजम्बत होने के आधार
पर भी ववलशश्ट मामलों में आयुध अनुज्ञजतत को
ननलूंबबत/ननरस्त फकया जा सकता है, परूंतु
अनुज्ञजतत प्राधधकारी को ऐसा करने के पयाघतत
आधार अपने आदेश में अलभललखखत फकये जाय।
यह
भी
आवश्यक
है
फक
ऐसे
आधार
अलभललखखत करते समय यह स्पश्ट उजकलखखत
फकया जाय फक अनुज्ञजतत प्राधधकारी को
समाधान हो गया फक प्रश्नगत आपराधधक
प्रकरण की प्रकृनत ऐसी है फक वह आमजन और
समाज की लोकशाूंनत एवूं लोक़क्षेम के प्रनतक ल
है और यहद अनुज्ञजततधारी को अनुज्ञजतत रखने
दी गई तो लोकशाूंनत व लोकक्षेम पर प्रनतक ल
प्रभाव प़िेगा।

(7) यदद ककसी शस्त् अनुज्ञस्प्प्त के
यनलिंबन या प्रयतसिंहरण की कायविाही आिराधधक
िाद के आधार िर की गई हैं तो यदद उक्ट्त
आिराधधक अशभयोग, दोशमुस्प्क्ट्त में िररियतवत हो
जाता हैं तो शस्त् यनलम्बन/यनरस्त्ीकरण के
आदेश का औधचत्य भी समाप्त हो जाता ह ,
िरिंतु यदद उक्ट्त अशभयेाग राज्य द्िारा अिील
योग्य िाया जाए एििं उक्ट्त प्रकरण की अिील
की जाए तो राज्य को उक्ट्त दोशमुस्प्क्ट्त के
आदेश की अिील के यनणवय तक अनुज्ञस्प्प्तधारी
की शस्त् अनुज्ञस्प्प्त यनलिंबबत/प्रयतसिंहररत रह
सकती ह । अताः ऐसे प्रकरण जहां
स्प्जला
मस्प्जस्टेaट के समक्ष दोशमुस्प्क्ट्त के अशभकथन
द्िारा
अिने
शस्त्
अनुज्ञस्प्प्त
यनलिंबन/यनरस्त्ीकरण की कायविाही को अिास्त
करने की प्राथवना की जाए, िहां
स्प्जला
मस्प्जस्टेaट यह जानकारी करना सुयनस्प्चचत करेंगे
कक
प्रकरण
में
कोई
राज्य
अिील
योस्प्जत/प्रस्तावित तो नहीिं की गई हैं? तथा
उसके उिरान्त ही ककसी यनणवय िर िहुचेंगे।

(8) जहाॅ
पर अनुज्ञजतत प्राधधकारी
द्वारा यह समाधान फकया जा रहा है फक
अनुज्ञजततधारी
का
कृत्य
लोकशाूंनत
और
लोकक्षेम के प्रनतक ल है तो इसका तात्पयघ
कान न
व्यवस्र्ा
बबग़िने
की
सामान्य
पररजस्र्नतयाूं¢ से नहीूं समझा जाएगा, अवपतु
लोकशाूंनत और लोकक्षेम प्रभाववत होना तर्ा
समाज पर व्यापक असर से तात्पनयघत है।

(9) शस्त्र ननरस्त्रीकरण की कायघवाही
लजम्बत रहने अर्वा कोई आपराधधक ववचारण
लजम्बत रहने के दौरान अनुज्ञजततधारी शस्त्र
रखने के ललए अधधकार स्वरूप माॅ ग नहीूं कर
सकता हैं क्योंफक शस्त्र अनुज्ञजतत एक अधधकार
नहीूं मात्र एक सुववधा है।

(10)
अनुज्ञजतत
प्राधधकारी/जजला
मजजस्टेaट अपने ताजत्वक समाधान के ललए
पुललस, अलभयोजन एवूं अन्य एजेंलसयों से
आख्या आह त कर सकता है। इसके सार् ही
जजला मजजस्टेaट द्वारा प्रकरण से सूंबूंधधत सभी
सुसूंगत अलभलेख पर ववचार करने तर्ा
मजजस्टेaट
अनुज्ञजततधारी
की
पाररवाररक
पश्श्ठभ लम, उसके प वघ आपराधधक कश्त्य और
उसका आपराधधक इनतहास को ववचार में लेने
के उपराूंत ही समुधचत आदेश पाररत फकया
जाय।

(11)
अनुज्ञजतत
प्राधधकारी/जजला
मजजस्टेaट आयुध अधधननयम की धारा 17 के
उपबूंधों के अूंतगघत यह समाधान होने पर फक
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
कोई अनुज्ञजततधारी फकसी गूंभीर अपराध में
सजम्मललत होने, दोशलसद्ध होने या फकसी अन्य
आनुशाूंधगक कारण, जजसे वो ताजत्वक रूप से
उधचत पाता हो, के आधार पर अनुज्ञजततकारी को
अनुज्ञजतत धारण करने के ललए अयोग्य व्यजक्त
की िेणी में पाता है तो वह शस्त्र अनुज्ञजतत को
ननलूंबबत/प्रनतसूंहररत कर सकता है।

(12) अग्नेयास्त्रों के लाइसेंस सुरक्षा
की दजश्श्ट से स्वीकश्त फकये जाते हैं। इनका
प्रयोग
शादी-वववाह
अर्वा
सावघजननक
स्ॅाजॅॅ
ानों पर प्रदशघन नहीूं फकया जाना
चाहहए। ऐसा फकये जाने से जनता में भय का
वातावरण व्यातत होता है। जो व्यजक्त शस्त्रों का
प्रयोग प्रदशघन हेतु अर्वा जनता में भय व्यातत
करते हुए पाए जाएॅ , उनके शस्त्र लाइसेंस की
शतघ सूंख्या 5 का उकलूंर्न करने के आरोप में
एवूं शस्त्र अधधननयम की धारा 17 (3) (ख), (र्),
(़ि) के अधीन तत्काल ननरस्त करते हुए ववधधक
कायघवाही की जा सकती है।

(13) यहद लाइसेंलसूंग अधधकारी के
समक्ष सामग्री है और उन्हें यह स्पश्ट हो जाता
है फक लाइसेंसी के पास शस्त्र रहने से शाूंनत एवूं
जनसुरक्षा खतरे में प़ि सकती है, तो वह
(लाइसेंलसूंग
अधधकारी)
उक्त
तथ्यों
को
अलभललखखत करने के उपराूंत सीधे अर्वा फकसी
जाॅ च अर्वा लाइसेंसी की सुनवाई का अवसर
हदये बबना लाइसेंस ननलजम्बत/ननरस्त कर सकते
हैं, परूंतु उन मामलों में जजनमें लाइसेंलसूंग
अधधकारी को यह स्पश्ट है फक लाइसेंसी के पास
शस्त्र रहने से जनशाजन्त या जनसुरक्षा खतरे में
प़ि सकती है और सही जस्र्त की जानकारी हेतु
जाॅ च लूंबबत हो तो ऐसी जाॅ च के दौरान
लाइसेंस ननरस्त नहीूं फकया जा सकता है।

(14) आयुध अधधननयम की धारा 17
के अूंतगघत फकसी कायघवाही को प्रचललत करने से
पहले जजला मजजस्टेaट/अनुज्ञजतत प्राधधकारी के
ललए यह आवश्यक है फक वह अपने समक्ष
प्रस्तुत पत्रावली पर अनुज्ञजततधारी की शस्त्र
अनुभाग से म ल पत्रावली में सूंलग्न शस्त्र
आवेदन, शपर्पत्र, आख्या एवूं सुसूंगत दस्तावेजों
का स क्ष्म अध्ययन कर लें, ताफक यह सुननजश्चत
फकया जा सके फक अनुज्ञजततधारी द्वारा गलत
तथ्यों के आधार पर शस्त्र आवेदन तो नहीूं
फकया गया है या फकसी शतघ का उकलूंर्न तो
नहीूं फकया गया है?

(15) उपरोक्त ननदेशों के अनतररक्त
आयुध अधधननयम-1959, आयुध ननयमावली-
2016 समय समय पर माननीय सवोच्च
न्यायालय
एवूं
माननीय
उच्च
न्यायालय
इलाहाबाद द्वारा पाररत आदेशों, भारत सरकार
एवूं राज्य सरकार द्वारा समयकभ् पर ननगघत
ननदेशों का भी सम्यक अनुपालन फकया जाए
एवूं यहद उक्त का अनुज्ञजततधारी द्वारा
उकलूंर्न पाया जाता है तो उसके शस़्त्त्र
अनुज्ञजतत के ननलूंबन/ननरस्तीकरण की ववधध
सम्मत कायघवाही सुननजश्चत की जाय।

3. इस सूंबूंध में मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा
ननम्नललखखत वादों (1) सी0पी0 साह बनाम उत्तर
प्रदेश राज्य 1984 ए0डब्ल 0सी0 145,(2) कैलाश
नार् बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य 1985 ए0डब्ल 0सी0
493, (3) हरप्रसाद बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य 2005
(5) ए0डब्ल 0सी0 4939 तर्ा (4) नेशनल कैवपटल
टेररटरी आॅ ि डेलही बनाम उमेश कुमार 2008
(3) एस0सी0सी0 फक्रलमनल 490 में पाररत
ननणघयों का सम्यक् अवलोकन करने के उपरान्त
उमें हदये गये ननदेशों का पालन करते हुए ही
कोई ननणघय ललया जाए।
7 All. Ram Vilas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
783

4. कृपया उक्त ननदेशों का क़िाई से
अनुपालन सुननजश्चत फकया जाए।"

14. In the case of Indra Pratap @
Ram Pratap v. State of U.P. through
Principal Secretary Home Lucknow and
Others in Misc. Single No. 28781 of 2017
decided on 15.2.2019, this Court vide
paragraphs 8,9,10 and 11 has held thus: -

"8. 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
Section 17 of the Arms Act has been
considered by a Division Bench of this
Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District
Magistrate Basti and others, 1979 (16)ACC
6 (sum), wherein the Division Bench relied
upon an earlier decision in Mast Uddin Vs.
Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573.
In both the aforesaid cases it has been held
that mere involvement in a criminal case
cannot in any way effect the public security
or public interest. In view of this
proposition of law the order cancelling or
revoking the licence of the petitioner on the
aforesaid ground of involvement and
pendency of a criminal case is not tenable.

9. In Full Bench Decision of this
Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad Sahu
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984(10) ALR
223 and Kailash Nath and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others, 1985 (22) ACC 353 and
in the case of Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State
of U.P. 1994 JIC 72 (All); 1995 (Supp)
ACC 235, it has been held that mere
pendency of a criminal case (s) is no
ground for cancellation of arms licence.
The effect of the aforesaid Full Bench
decisions was also considered in Sadri
Ram Vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh
and others, 1998 (3) AWC 2102: 1998 (37)
ACC 830.

10. This court in the case of
Harprasad (supra) held as hereunder:

" involvement and pendency of a
case crime is no ground for cancellation of
fire-arm licence. It is settled law that after
acquittal the very basis for cancellation of
the arm licence stands vitiated. In this
regard reference of the decision rendered
in Lalji Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and
another, 1999 (4) AWC 2952, has been
made."

11. Thus in view of the admitted
facts and the settled legal position that a
fire arm licence can not be cancelled on the
ground of mere involvement of licensee in a
criminal case, the impugned orders cannot
be sustained. Even otherwise the petitioner
has been acquitted in the criminal case in
which he was involved and hence there is
no justification for the continuance of the
cancellation of the petitioner's fire arm
licence."
Likewise, the relevant observations in the
case of Mukesh Kumar Yadav (supra) are
reproduced as under:-

"10. The said section has come up
for judicial scrutiny in the case of C.P.
Sahu
Vs.
State,
1984
AWC
145;
Kailashnath Vs. State of U.P. and another,
1985 AWC 493; Balram Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 1988 AWC 14814; Rana
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1995 ACJ
200 and as per the judicial provocation
given, there on the following points:-

(a) the licensing authority has no
power to suspend the arms licence pending
enquiry into its cancellation/suspension nor
has it the power to suspend the licence for
indefinite period;

(b) licensing authority has the
power to suspend for specified period a
fire-arm licence on being satisfied as to
existence of all or any of the conditions
visualised by clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (3) of Section 17 of the Act sans any
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prior opportunity of hearing being given to
the licence holder but such order of
suspension shall not attain finality until the
aggrieved party has been heard and his
objections, if any, adjudicated. In other
words, suspension of arms licence for
specified period or its revocation under
Section 17(3) of the Act, if ordered without
affording opportunity of hearing, would
endure in suspended animation until the
aggrieved party has been heard by the
licensing authority and his objections, if
any, are adjudicated:

(c) the licensing authority can
also for the furtherance of the immediate
remedial actions, exercise in facts and
circumstances
of
a
given
case,
an
incidental power of directing the licence
holder to surrender his licence until
objections have been decided ; and

(d) suspension under Section
17(3) of the Act must be for definite period
to be specified in the order by the licensing
authority.

11. Further, this Court in the case
of Sahab Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra
Region, Agra and others 2006 (24) LCD
374, in paragraph No. 3 held as under:-

"The submission of the petitioner
is that merely because of pendency of a
criminal case, the arms licence of the
petitioner cannot be cancelled. in support
of the said submission, learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance on two
decisions of this Court in the case of
Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and
Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P. . It has
further been submitted that in view of the
Full Bench decision of this Court in the
cases of Balaram Singh v. State of U.P. and
Ors. Kailash Nath v. 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 v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and
Ors., the arms licence of the petitioner
cannot be placed under suspension pending
enquiry."

15. In view of the well-settled legal
proposition and the relevant case laws
referred above and the provisions contained
in the said Act, this Court finds that in the
present case, the petitioner's licence was
cancelled
by
the
concerned
District
Magistrate on the ground of pendency of
criminal case against him. The petitioner
was later on acquitted of the criminal case
by order dated 23.07.2021. A perusal of the
order of acquittal does not show the use of
fire arm. After acquittal, the very basis of
the order of cancellation vanished. The
finding of the concerned 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.

16. Thus in view of above exposition
of law and applying the same to the facts
and circumstances of the present case, I am
of the considered opinion that the order
passed by the licensing authority cancelling
the fire arms license of the petitioner dated
02.08.2019
deserves
to
be
quashed.
Therefore, the impugned order dated
02.08.2019 passed by the respondent no.2
in case No.377/2019 (computerized case
No.C201918000000377) as well as the
order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the
respondent no.3 in appeal no.225/2017
7 All. Bajrangi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
(Computerized Case No.D201718210225)
are hereby quashed.

17. However, quashing of the
impugned orders would not result in revival
of
the
petitioner's
fire
arm
license
automatically. The petitioner may move an
application before the District Magistrate,
Etah alongwith relevant document as well
as acquittal order and certified copy of this
order within two weeks from today. If any
such application is filed before the District
Magistrate, Etah/licensing authority, the
same shall be processed and decided
expeditiously strictly in accordance with
law, within a period of two months from
the date of production of such application.

18. Needless to say, the licensing
authority shall not refuse the arm license on
the ground of the impugned orders, which
has been quashed by this order.

19. With the aforesaid directions, the
present writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 785
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 5015 of 2023

Bajrangi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohd. Zubair, Ms. Roshni Ibrahim
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Section 98 - U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016, Rule 99 - Collector's permission for
transfer of Scheduled Caste bhumidhar's
land - Explanation to Rule 99 - Clause (d)
of sub-rule (8) mandates that the area of
the land held by the applicant after
transfer must not be reduced to less than
1.26 hectares. Held: The import of the
Explanation appended to Rule 99 is that
even in a case where the area of land held
by the applicant on the date of application
reduces to less than 1.26 hectares after
the transfer, permission may still be
granted in the event that either of the
conditions specified in Clauses (a) to (c) is
fulfilled. The use of "or" between Clauses
(a) to (d) of sub-rule (8) conveys a
disjunctive sense, indicating alternatives,
and the fulfillment of the conditions
specified in any one of the clauses would
be
sufficient
grounds
for
granting
permission under Section 98(1). i.e., even
if one of the conditions under Clauses (a)
to (d) of Rule 99(8) is fulfilled, the nonfulfillment of any other condition would be
of no consequence. (Para 37, 38)
B. In the instant case petitioner belonged
to the Scheduled Caste and was suffering
from a disease. In order to meet the
expenses of medical treatment, he had
taken a loan. To repay the loan and to
fund his medical treatment, he was in
need
of
financial
assistance
and
accordingly sought permission for the
transfer of his bhumidhari land. Collector
rejected the application, purportedly on
the ground that after the proposed
transfer, the remaining area of land held
by
the
petitioner
would
be
0.5930
hectares, i.e., less than 1.26 hectares.
Held: Impugned order was non-speaking
and
does
not
indicate
an
objective
consideration of the conditions under
Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-rule (8) of Rule
99, which are in the nature of alternatives.
Impugned orders set aside. (Para 64)