# Ramesh Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 308
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 49973 of 2005
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49153
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Arms Act 1961 - Section 17 -
Variation, suspension and revocation of
licences - mere pendency of criminal case is
no ground to cancel fire arm licence - mere
involvement in a criminal case cannot in any
way affect the public security or public
interest - Right to possess arms is statutory
right but right to live and liberty is
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution of India - 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. (Para -
16,17,18 )

Arms license and revolver not surrendered
before competent Court - both properties are
still in possession of petitioner - mandamus -
not to compel petitioner for depositing of Arms
License and revolver before anyone - three
cases against petitioner - no case made out - no
trial started against petitioner - apprehension
by District Magistrate and Commissioner -
petitioner
may
breach
public
peace
and
tranquility by misusing fire arm - Grounds of
Section 17 do not exist - no material to establish
that
petitioner
involved
in
any
criminal
activity.(Para - 3,5,15)

HELD:-No
criminal
case
pending
against
petitioner on which basis Arms License could
have been terminated. Order passed by District
Magistrate and Commissioner canceling arms
license of the petitioner are liable to be
quashed.(Para - 23)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. Let a certified copy of the order
be sent to the S.D.O. Bansi, District
Siddharth Nagar, for necessary compliance.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 308
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 49973 of 2005

Ramesh Chandra Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Devendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Arms Act 1961 - Section 17 -
Variation, suspension and revocation of
licences - mere pendency of criminal case is
no ground to cancel fire arm licence - mere
involvement in a criminal case cannot in any
way affect the public security or public
interest - Right to possess arms is statutory
right but right to live and liberty is
fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21
of the Constitution of India - 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. (Para -
16,17,18 )

Arms license and revolver not surrendered
before competent Court - both properties are
still in possession of petitioner - mandamus -
not to compel petitioner for depositing of Arms
License and revolver before anyone - three
cases against petitioner - no case made out - no
trial started against petitioner - apprehension
by District Magistrate and Commissioner -
petitioner
may
breach
public
peace
and
tranquility by misusing fire arm - Grounds of
Section 17 do not exist - no material to establish
that
petitioner
involved
in
any
criminal
activity.(Para - 3,5,15)

HELD:-No
criminal
case
pending
against
petitioner on which basis Arms License could
have been terminated. Order passed by District
Magistrate and Commissioner canceling arms
license of the petitioner are liable to be
quashed.(Para - 23)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Prasad Vs Commissioner & ors. , 2020 0
Supreme (All) 104

2. Masiuddin Vs Commissioner, Alld. Division,
Alld. & anr., 1972, A.L.J. 573

3. Habib Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2002 (44) ACC
783

4. Satish Singh Vs D.M., Sultanpur , 2009 (4)
ADJ (LB)

5. Chandrabali Tewari Vs The Commissioner,
Faizabad , 2014 (32) LCD 1696

6. Indrajeet Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Writ C
No. 4947 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed
with the following prayer:

"(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorary to
quash
the
orders
dated
17.2.2004
(Annexure No.1) passed by respondent no.2
and order dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure
No.3) passed by respondent no.3.
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
309

(b) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of of Mandamus
directing the respondents not to compel the
petitioner for depositing of Arms Licence
No. 1316 and Revolver before anyone."

3. As per the petition and the
documents annexed with the petition,
following cases were pending against the
petitioner:

(a) Case Crime No. 16 of 2000,
under Section 323, 307 IPC, Police Station
Civil Lines Etawah, in which I.O. has
submitted final report no 265 of 2001 on
14.3.2000 which was accepted by the trial
Court on 2.6.2005.

(b) Case Crime No. 442 of 1999,
under Section 3⁄4 of Goondas Act, Police
Station- Civil Lines, Etawah in which a
report was sent by the police to the
respondent no.2, but he had returned all the
papers on 8.9.1999 to the concerning
Station House Officer and in this regard
question-answer dated 27.5.2005 (annexed
as No. 4) wherein it is stated that neither
the case is pending nor the challani report
has been received.

(c) Case Crime No. 167 of 1999
under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police
Station Ushrahar, District- Etawah.- In this
case police has submitted charge-sheet only
for the Section 504 I.P.C. and final order
was passed by the Trial Court on 27.4.2005
discharging the petitioner. (Annexure No. 6
to the writ petition).

4. According to the petitioner the
arms license and revolver has not been
surrendered before the competent Court
and both the properties are still in
possession of the petitioner. The license
was
valid
upto
31.12.2006.
The
respondents
were
bound
to
afford
opportunity of personal hearing and if they
would have provided the opportunity of
hearing, they would have not passed such
order. The orders have been passed on the
basis of false and fabricated report sent by
the police with the collusion of inimical
persons to the petitioner. Hence the
impugned orders are liable to be quashed
with cost.

5. On the aforesaid grounds the
petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order
or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to compel the
petitioner for depositing of Arms License
No. 1316 and revolver before anyone.

6. Against the petition no counter
affidavit has been filed by the respondents
nor instructions have been sent by the
respondents
to
the
learned
Standing
Counsel to enable him to argue the case.
Hence this order is being passed after
considering the material available on
record.

7. From the perusal of records it
transpires that Case Crime No. 16 of 2000,
under Section 323, 307 IPC, Police Station
Civil Lines, Etawah, final report number
265 of 2001 has been accepted by the trial
court on 2.6.2005.

8. Case Crime No. 442 of 1999, under
Section 3⁄4 of Goondas Act, Police Station-
Civil Lines, Etawah, question-answer dated
27.5.2005 shows that no challani report
regarding the Goondas Act has been sent to
the District Magistrate, Etawah.

9. So far as Case Crime No. 167 of
1999 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
is concerned, only charge-sheet under
Section 504 I.P.C. was produced from
which petitioner has been discharged as
evident from the perusal of annexure no. 6.
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. It would be proper to see the case
in view of the cases decided by the Courts
of Records on the point. Hence some
relevant cases are referred and discussed to
reach at the correct conclusion.

11.

In
Ram
Prasad
Vs.
Commissioner
And
Others
2020
0
Supreme (All) 104, District Magistrate
cancelled the arms license on the basis of
pendency of criminal cases against the
petitioner. Petitioner was later on acquitted
from the criminal cases. Order of Acquittal
was not showing use of fire arm of the
petitioner. It was held that after acquittal
the very basis of the order of cancellation
vanished and 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.

12. Section 17 of the Arms Act is 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 subsection (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 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
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
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.

13. In Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad
and
Another, 1972, A.L.J. 573, it is held that '
After a license is granted, the right to hold
the license and possess a gun is a valuable
individual right in a free country."

14. Further it is 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 the
security of public peace or public safety.

15. In this case, the Magistrate has
based his order on three criminal cases
which have been decided in favour of the
petitioner. Nature of all the cases was not
heinous. There is no proof that the fire arm
was used in commission of any of the
crimes.
The
District
Magistrate
and
Commissioner have merely expressed the
apprehension that the petitioner may breach
the public peace and tranquility by
misusing the fire arm. Grounds of Section
17 of Arms Act 1961, do not exist. Since
the year 2005, no material has been placed
to establish that the petitioner has been
involved in any criminal activity.

16. In Habib Vs. State of U.P. And
Others, 2002 (44) ACC 783, it has been
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.

17. In Satish Singh Vs. District
Magistrate, Sultanpur 2009 (4) ADJ (LB),
it has been held that, "Right to possess
arms is statutory right but right to live and
liberty is fundamental right 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 the arms licence are
abused for oblique motive or criminal
activities, then appropriate measure 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
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
letter and spirit of Section 17 of the Arms
Act."

18. In Chandrabali Tewari Vs. The
Commissioner, Faizabad, 2014 (32) LCD
1696, it has been 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
canceling petitioner's fire arm licence was
quashed."

19. In Ram Prasad (Supra), following
principles have been laid down regarding
licence possession of firearms and its
suspension and revocation;

(i) Right to hold fire arm licence
granted by the authorities in accordance
with the provisions contained in the Arms
Act, 1959 is a valuable right of an
individual.

(ii) Licencing authority has the
power to suspend or revoke an arm's
licence only if any of the conditions
mentioned in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub
Section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act
exists.

(iii) The provisions of Section 17
of the Act cannot be invoked lightly in an
arbitrary manner.

(iv) The licencing authority has to
satisfy itself if it is necessary for the
security of public peace or for public safety
to suspend or revoke the licence.

(v) Such satisfaction of the
licencing authority must be expressed in
the order and must be based on relevant
material.

(vi) 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 of few persons only.

(vii)
Mere
involvement
or
pendency of a criminal case does not, of its
own, necessarily affect public peace or
public safety. The licencing authority in
each case has to record a finding as to how
and
under
what
circumstances
the
possession of the arm licence is detrimental
to the public peace or public safety.

(viii) On mere apprehension of
misuse of fire arm or that the licencee
would extend threat to the persons of the
weaker section, the arm licence cannot be
cancelled. There must be some positive
incident in which the licencee participated
or used his arm, leading to breach of public
peace or public security.

(ix) After acquittal of the licencee
from the criminal case, the very basis of
cancellation of arm licence is vanished.

20. In the light of the above
principles, the impugned order does not
satisfy the test.

21. However, learned Standing
Counsel has tried to support the impugned
orders and placed reliance on the judgment
of this Court passed in Indrajeet Singh Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ C No. 4947 of
2019) decided on 22.10.2021, wherein
relying upon the judgment given in the case
of Deputy Inspector General of Police and
Another Vs. S.Samuthiram, 2013(1) SCC
598, it has been held that- "The expressions
'honorable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame,'
'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code
of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code,
which
are
coined
by
judicial
pronouncements. It is difficult to define
precisely what is meant by the expression
'honorably acquitted'. When the accused is
acquitted
after
full
consideration
of
prosecution
evidence
and
that
the
prosecution had miserably failed to prove
the charges leveled against the accused, it
1 All. Ram Roop & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh & Ors.
313
can possibly be said that the accused was
honorably acquitted."

22. In this case, in all the three cases
no case against the petitioner has been
made out and in one case final report has
been submitted, in another case, the
petitioner was discharged and in the case of
Goondas
Act,
the
proceedings
were
dropped. Therefore, it can safely be said
that even no trial started against the
petitioner.
Hence,
both
the
judicial
precedents cited above, do not apply
against the petitioner.

23. Thus, on the basis of the papers
annexed with the petition and discussions
made hereinabove, it transpires that no
criminal case is pending against the
petitioner on which basis Arms License No.
1316 police station Civil Lines, could have
been terminated, hence, the order dated
17.2.2004
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Etawah, and the order dated
26.4.2005 passed by the Commissioner,
Kanpur Region, Kanpur, canceling the
arms license of the petitioner Ramesh
Chandra Yadav s/o of Shri Taleh Singh, r/o
Ashok Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines,
District- Etawah, are liable to be quashed.

Order

24. The writ petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 17.2.2004 passed
by
respondent
no.2,
District
Magistrate/Licencing Authority, District
Etawah and the order dated 26.4.2005
passed by respondent no.3, Commissioner,
Kanpur
Region,
Kanpur
are
hereby
quashed.

25. If no any other reason exists for
cancellation of the arms license of the
petitioner, the arms license, already granted
to the petitioner, shall continue and if it is
terminated
or
revoked,
it
shall
be
revived/reissued.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 51738 of 2000

Ram Roop & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner,
Azamgarh
Division,
Azamgarh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Raj Kishore Yadav, Sri S.C. Varma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Kumar

(A) Consolidation Law - The Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 4(2),5(2)
& 9-A(2) - notification , Section 52 - Close
of consolidation operations , The U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 33 r. w.
Section 39 - annual registers - Correction
of mistakes in the annual register , section
219 - Revision .

Villages denotified under Section 52 of CH Act -
petitioner granted Sirdari rights over plot -
possession over plots for last 25/26 years -
notification
issued
under
Section
4(2)
-
consolidation
proceedings
restored
-
consolidation operation - change of entries in
revenue records by respondent no.1 - without
issuing notice or affording an opportunity of
hearing - objection - revision - dismissed -
hence petition.(Para - 2 to 9)

(B) The Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - consolidation court has no power
to pass an order regarding the holding of
Gram Samaj and if they pass any order, it
would be null and void - Consolidation