# Sahu v. State of U.P.and others - **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1341 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-12-15 - **Bench:** Shri Narayan Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sahu-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41795 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Arms Act-Section 17 (3)-suspension of Arms licence-on invollvement in criminal case U/S 498 A/304-B IPC readwith 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Actapprehension of authorities about misuse of Arm in pressurizing the witness-held-in view of full bench decision in Kailash Nath Case petitioner cannot retain the licence as matter of right-enquiry itself be expedited. Held: Para 5 & 6 It has been answered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Nath (Supra), therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim right of retaining of that very arms licence. In view of above, I am of the view that the orders impugned do not suffer from error. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this court, at this stage. Let inquiry for cancellation of petitioner's arms licence be expedited with his cooperation by the Licensing Authority. Case law discussed: ALR 1984 (10) 223, 1985 (22) A.C.C.,Page 353 ## Text 3 All] Ram Sanehi V. Commissioner, Lucknow Div. Lucknow and another 1341 of the accused, therefore, is no more available to the applicant. The trial Court has also given cogent reasons for accepting the prosecution case and believing prosecution witnesses 32. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the opinion that the applicant does not deserve bail on the ground of parity, long incarceration in jail or any other grounds. Bail is therefore refused and application for bail is rejected accordingly. 33. List this appeal for final hearing on merit in the next cause list. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. Misc. Single No.-7351 of 2010 Ram Sanehi ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Lucknow Div. Lucknow and another ...Respondent Counsel; for the Petitioner: Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C Arms Act-Section 17 (3)-suspension of Arms licence-on invollvement in criminal case U/S 498 A/304-B IPC readwith 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Actapprehension of authorities about misuse of Arm in pressurizing the witness-held-in view of full bench decision in Kailash Nath Case petitioner cannot retain the licence as matter of right-enquiry itself be expedited. Held: Para 5 & 6 It has been answered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Nath (Supra), therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim right of retaining of that very arms licence. In view of above, I am of the view that the orders impugned do not suffer from error. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this court, at this stage. Let inquiry for cancellation of petitioner's arms licence be expedited with his cooperation by the Licensing Authority. Case law discussed: ALR 1984 (10) 223, 1985 (22) A.C.C.,Page 353 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.N.Shukla, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing counsel. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-6-2010 Passed by District Magistrate, Hardoi; whereby the petitioner?s arms licence has been suspended due to his involvement in a criminal case as also the order dated 2110-2010 Passed the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow under the strength of the case decided by the Full Bench of this Court i.e. Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of U.P.and others, reported in ALR 1984 (10) 223, in which it has been held that having regard to the scheme and purpose of the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and the nature of the enquiry that a licensing authority is to make before directing revocation/suspension of an arms licence, it has no power to suspend the arms licence pending enquiry into its cancellation/suspension. 1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 2. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel submits that in different case i.e. Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (H.C,F.B.), reported in 1985 (22) A.C.C., page 353 by the same very strength of the Bench of this Court it has been held that the right to carry the arms is merely a personal privilege and on taking out such privilege no civil consequences follow. Further the Full Bench has also expressed their opinion that obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of fire arms and ammunition under the Arms Act is nothing more than a privilege and the grant of such privilege does not involve the adjudication of the rights of an individual nor does it entail civil consequences. The power of suspension can be exercised by the Licensing Authority on certain conditions as is envisaged in section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- 3. "17(3). - The licensing authority may be 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 license 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. Keeping in view the involvement of the petitioner in criminal case registered in case crime no. 216/2009, under sections 498A/304 B IPC and 324 Dowry of Prohibition Act, the Licensing Authority held that the petitioner can misuse his power in pressurizing the witnesses during trial in his favour. In this situation, it is not proper in the public interest to retain the arms by the petitioner. Involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid case is not disputed. Only the question for consideration is whether he is entitled to hold the arms licence during the trial of the aforesaid case till it is cancelled finally. The nature of right of holding the arms licence has been discussed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Nath (Supra). 5. It has been answered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Nath (Supra), therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot claim right of retaining of that very arms licence. 6. In view of above, I am of the view that the orders impugned do not suffer from error. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this court, at this stage. Let 3 All] Manoj Agarwal V. Collector, Lucknow and others 1343 inquiry for cancellation of petitioner's arms licence be expedited with his cooperation by the Licensing Authority. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE F.I. REBELLO, C.J. THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J. Misc. Bench No. 12168 of 2010 Manoj Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus Collector, Lucknow and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Subhash Vidyarthi Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. A.K. Chaturvedi U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues Act 1972-Section 3)-Recovery of telephone bills-as arrears of land Revenue-in absence Deed of agreement, nor advance any loan, nor related to credit of higherpurchase of goods by Banking Camp or govt Company under state sponsored scheme-issue of recovery certificate held-without jurisdiction-legal aspect discussed. Held: Para 5 It would, thus, be clear that for the purpose of recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue, there must be an agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant and if there be a default of payment of any installment thereof, then said amount defaulted can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In the instant case, respondent no.3 has not given any loan, advance or grant to the petitioner, nor is related to credit in respect of, or relating to hire-purchase of goods sold by a Banking Company or a Government Company under the State-sponsored scheme. Thus, it will be clear that the recovery certificate issued by respondent no.3 for recovery of the amount in terms of the Act 1890 is clearly without jurisdiction and without authority of law and, consequently, respondents 1 and 2 could not have acted on the same. The recovery citation, therefore, issued by respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction. (Delivered By Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.) 1. M/s. Richa Telecom, a propriety firm of the petitioner, entered into an agreement with M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'ICICI Company') for providing telecom services. Pursuant to that, according to the petitioner, he took a number of telephone connections from various telecom companies, including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), which were installed at various offices of the ICICI Company. There arose some disputes and differences between the petitioner and the ICICI Company in respect of payment of bills, which have been referred to an Arbitrator. 2. According to the petitioner, the telecom companies including BSNL - respondent no.3, raised several bills for various telephone connections taken by the petitioner at various locations across the Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, and on 21.06.2010, respondent no.3 sent a recovery certificate to the Collector, Lucknow for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,65,699/- towards arrears of telephone bills as arrears of land revenue. According to the petitioner, respondent no.3 is a