# Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 526
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-19
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No.28781 of 2017
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjeev-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53009
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - THE ARMS ACT, 1959 -
Section 17(1)(b) - The licensing authority
may by order in writing revoke a licence if the
licensing authority deems it necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public safety
to revoke the licence - District Magistrate,
cancelled the arms licence on account of misuse
of weapon by threatening the police. F.I.R. in
respect of the same incident lodged. In the said
criminal case charge sheet submitted against
the petitioner and charges framed. Criminal case
pending against the petitioner. Held : Findings
recorded in the criminal case may have an
important
bearing
with
regard
to
the
cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner as
the
present
proceedings
are
summary
proceedings. However, in the trial if the
petitioner is convicted, the same may fortify the
stand taken by the State for cancellation of
arms licence. However, the acquittal order
would also equally effects the cancellation of the
arms licence. Defence of the petitioner qua the
cancellation of the arms licence was required to
be proved by the petitioner by leading evidence.
Petitioner did not lead any evidence, therefore,
it cannot be said that the petitioner has not
misuse
the
firearm.
It
was
also
not
demonstrated that the report of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, was incorrect. No
error in the impugned order. (Para 9, 11)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delay of such nature is not repeated in
future. The Registrar (Compliance) of this
Court is directed to communicate this order
to
the
Principal
Secretary
(Home),
Government of U.P., Lucknow.

8. With regard to the present case,
the District Magistrate, Meerut is directed
to ensure compliance of the letter dated
September 3, 2024 within a period of one
week from date. Upon such compliance
being made, the Department concerned in
the Union of India is directed to act on a
war footing and thereafter make payment
of additional compensation to the petitioner
within six weeks from the date of receipt of
documents from the District Magistrate,
Meerut.

9. With the above directions, the
writ petition is disposed of.

10.
Let
this
order
be
also
communicated
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance) of this Court to the Ministry
of Home Affairs, Women Safety Division,
Government of India, New Delhi and the
District Magistrate, Meerut.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 526
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ CNo. 7948 of 2019

Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dharm Vir Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Criminal Law - THE ARMS ACT, 1959 -
Section 17(1)(b) - The licensing authority
may by order in writing revoke a licence if the
licensing authority deems it necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public safety
to revoke the licence - District Magistrate,
cancelled the arms licence on account of misuse
of weapon by threatening the police. F.I.R. in
respect of the same incident lodged. In the said
criminal case charge sheet submitted against
the petitioner and charges framed. Criminal case
pending against the petitioner. Held : Findings
recorded in the criminal case may have an
important
bearing
with
regard
to
the
cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner as
the
present
proceedings
are
summary
proceedings. However, in the trial if the
petitioner is convicted, the same may fortify the
stand taken by the State for cancellation of
arms licence. However, the acquittal order
would also equally effects the cancellation of the
arms licence. Defence of the petitioner qua the
cancellation of the arms licence was required to
be proved by the petitioner by leading evidence.
Petitioner did not lead any evidence, therefore,
it cannot be said that the petitioner has not
misuse
the
firearm.
It
was
also
not
demonstrated that the report of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, was incorrect. No
error in the impugned order. (Para 9, 11)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Nagesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C
No.53252 of 2015

2. Pratap @ Ram Pratap Vs St. of U.P. through
Principal Secretary Home Lucknow & ors. in
Misc. Single No.28781 of 2017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.
2 All. Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
527

2. By means of the writ petition, the
petitioner is challenging the order dated
20.7.2018
passed
by
Commissioner,
Aligarh Division, Aligarh and order dated
29.5.2017 passed by District Magistrate,
Etah cancelling the firearm licence of the
petitioner.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the arms licence of
the petitioner was cancelled by order dated
29.5.2017
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Etah.
The
ground
for
cancellation of the arms licence stated to be
that the petitioner has mis-behaved with the
police personnel and has torn away the
challan book at the barrier checking and
has misused his firearm for threatening the
police. In this respect, a report was
submitted by the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Etah on 3.11.2016. The petitioner
on the other hand, submitted his reply that
he is running a hotel and the police
personnel have come to the hotel of the
petitioner and have consumed food without
paying the money. The police personnel
were having liquor at the hotel, which was
objected by the petitioner. The price of the
food was demanded, as a result of the
same, the present false case has been
registered against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon a judgment of this Court
passed in Writ-C No.53252 of 2015,
Nagesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others, to submit that mere pendency of a
criminal case against the petitioner would
not be a ground for cancellation of the
firearm licence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in respect of the aforesaid
incident a criminal case being Case Crime
No.368 of 2016, under Sections 332, 353,
504, 506, 427 I.P.C. was registered against
the petitioner. After investigation, a charge
sheet has been submitted and charges have
been
framed
against
the
petitioner.
However, the sole argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that mere
pendency of a criminal case cannot be a
ground for cancellation of arms licence.

6. Learned Standing Counsel has
opposed the writ petition and submits that
the arms licence has not been cancelled on
the ground of pendency of criminal case.
The petitioner has been involved in
threatening the police personnel and has
torn away the challan book of the police at
the barrier checking and has threatened
with his firearm. The aforesaid action on
the part of the petitioner has resulted in the
cancellation of firearm licence on the
ground of misuse of firearm.

7. In the present case, it is to be seen
that the arms licence of the petitioner has
been cancelled by order dated 29.5.2017 by
the District Magistrate, Etah and thereafter,
the appeal of the petitioner has also been
rejected by order dated 20.7.2018 passed
by
Commissioner,
Aligarh
Division,
Aligarh. The submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the arms licence of
the petitioner has been cancelled on the
ground of pendency of criminal case, which
is in the teeth of law laid down by this
Court in the case of Nagesh Kumar
(supra). The aforesaid judgment relied
upon the judgment passed in the case of
Pratap @ Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P.
through
Principal
Secretary
Home
Lucknow and others in Misc. Single
No.28781 of 2017.

8. A perusal of the order dated
29.5.2017 passed by District Magistrate,
Etah would go to show that the District
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate, Etah has cancelled the arms
licence of the petitioner on account of
misuse of weapon by threatening the
police. Although, in the order, reference
has been made to the criminal case pending
against
the
petitioner.
However,
the
cancellation of arms licence order itself
records that the petitioner has not been able
to show any acquittal order. It is admitted
to learned counsel for the petitioner that in
the criminal case charge sheet has been
submitted against the petitioner and charges
have been framed. The first information
report was in respect of the same incident,
which resulted in the cancellation of arms
licence.

9. It is further to be seen that the
findings recorded in the criminal case may
have an important bearing with regard to the
cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner
as the present proceedings are summary
proceedings. However, in the trial if the
petitioner is convicted, the same may fortify
the stand taken by the State for cancellation
of arms licence. However, the acquittal order
would also equally effects the cancellation of
the arms licence and that is why the
Licensing Authority has recorded a specific
finding that no acquittal order has been
produced by the petitioner.

10. In the present case, the defence of
the petitioner was to the extent that the
petitioner is running a hotel where the police
personnel have attended and consumed food
including liquor. However, the petitioner
objected for consumption of liquor in the
hotel. The money of the food was demanded
and the same was denied, which resulted in
the lodging of the first information report.

11. On a query being made to learned
counsel for the petitioner as to what was the
evidence lead in support of the defence of the
petitioner that the police personnel have
abused their authority and have not paid the
money for food, learned counsel for the
petitioner could not demonstrate from record
any material evidence. The defence of the
petitioner qua the cancellation of the arms
licence was required to be proved by the
petitioner by leading evidence. Since the
petitioner has not lead any evidence,
therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner
has not misuse the firearm. It has also not
been demonstrated that the report of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah dated
3.11.2016 is incorrect.

12. In view of the aforesaid, no error
has been shown by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in the impugned orders. The
writ
petition
lacks
merit
and
is,
accordingly, dismissed.

13. However, in the event, an acquittal
order is passed in favour of the petitioner in
the criminal trial, the petitioner would be at
liberty to apply before the Licensing
Authority for restoration of the arms
licence in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 528
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 10598 of 2024

M/s Shree Shanker Medicals ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ayodhya
Prasad
Mishra,
A.P.
Mishra,
Jaylaxmi Upadhyay, Rituraj Mishra, Shesh
Ram Verma