# Suneel v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 334
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-03
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 42274 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suneel-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45830
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Cancellation of the Arms
licence - Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3) - Section 17 (7) - Section 18 of
the Arms Act - appeal before the
Commissioner - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
section - 307,section - 504 - order passed
by District Magistrate and Commissioner -
not sustainable in the eyes of law -
quashed - matter remitted back to the
District Magistrate - to pass a reasoned and
speaking order afresh, for restoring the
arms licence of the petitioner in accordance
with law. (Para -21)

Petitioner having a fire arms licence -
Petitioner involved in sole criminal case -
acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge -
conviction set aside in appeal or otherwise -
suspension or revocation shall become void
- arm licence has to be restored considering
the provisions contained under Sections
17(3) and 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959 -
fire arm licence of the petitioner cancelled
in public interest - no incident of breach of
security of the public peace or public safety
at the behest of the petitioner - no criminal
history - police report does not indicate
that the petitioner had utilized the fire arm
during the said incicent - no such averment
was made by the authorities concerned.
(Para-19)

HELD:- Merely pendency of the criminal
case or with the apprehention that the
petitioner may be involved in future in any
other criminal case cannot be a ground for
cancellation of the arms licence under the
Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear
cutt 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
which
the
Competent
Authorities fail to record any such finding in
the impugned orders.(Para-15)

Petition allowed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1.Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs D.M., Basti & ors.
(1978) AWC 122

2.Rajendra Deo Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2012) 4 ADJ 716

3.Rajendra Pandit Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2012) 10 ADJ 435

4.Ram Charan Vs St. of U.P .& 2 ors. (2016) 11
ADJ 185

5.Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Vs St. of Bihar AIR
(1966) SC 740

6.Ram Murti Madhukar Vs D.M., Sitapur (1998)
16 LCD 905

7.Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs D.M. Almora , AIR
(1993) Allahabad-291

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

9.Ashiq Hussain Vs Comms., Moradabad & ors.
(2009)
10
ADJ
635
6 All. Suneel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
335
10.Rama Kushwaha Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2011)
29 LCD 1045

11.Ram Murli Madhukar Vs D.M., Sitapur ,
(1998) 16 LCD 905,

12.Hiramani Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2011)
29 LCD 829

13.Ashok Rao Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) 68
ACC 441

14.Ram Bodh Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (1985)
11 Allahabad Law Reports, 114

15.Anil Kumar Singh Vs D.M., (1994) 12 LCD
1109

## Text

334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adjacent to it as has been described in
the leased plan forming part of the lease
deed.

46. The writ petition is allowed
with no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)06ILR A334
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Writ-C No. 42274 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul, Sri Saurabh Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Cancellation of the Arms
licence - Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3) - Section 17 (7) - Section 18 of
the Arms Act - appeal before the
Commissioner - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
section - 307,section - 504 - order passed
by District Magistrate and Commissioner -
not sustainable in the eyes of law -
quashed - matter remitted back to the
District Magistrate - to pass a reasoned and
speaking order afresh, for restoring the
arms licence of the petitioner in accordance
with law. (Para -21)

Petitioner having a fire arms licence -
Petitioner involved in sole criminal case -
acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge -
conviction set aside in appeal or otherwise -
suspension or revocation shall become void
- arm licence has to be restored considering
the provisions contained under Sections
17(3) and 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959 -
fire arm licence of the petitioner cancelled
in public interest - no incident of breach of
security of the public peace or public safety
at the behest of the petitioner - no criminal
history - police report does not indicate
that the petitioner had utilized the fire arm
during the said incicent - no such averment
was made by the authorities concerned.
(Para-19)

HELD:- Merely pendency of the criminal
case or with the apprehention that the
petitioner may be involved in future in any
other criminal case cannot be a ground for
cancellation of the arms licence under the
Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear
cutt 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
which
the
Competent
Authorities fail to record any such finding in
the impugned orders.(Para-15)

Petition allowed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1.Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs D.M., Basti & ors.
(1978) AWC 122

2.Rajendra Deo Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2012) 4 ADJ 716

3.Rajendra Pandit Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2012) 10 ADJ 435

4.Ram Charan Vs St. of U.P .& 2 ors. (2016) 11
ADJ 185

5.Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Vs St. of Bihar AIR
(1966) SC 740

6.Ram Murti Madhukar Vs D.M., Sitapur (1998)
16 LCD 905

7.Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs D.M. Almora , AIR
(1993) Allahabad-291

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

9.Ashiq Hussain Vs Comms., Moradabad & ors.
(2009)
10
ADJ
635
6 All. Suneel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
335
10.Rama Kushwaha Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2011)
29 LCD 1045

11.Ram Murli Madhukar Vs D.M., Sitapur ,
(1998) 16 LCD 905,

12.Hiramani Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2011)
29 LCD 829

13.Ashok Rao Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) 68
ACC 441

14.Ram Bodh Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (1985)
11 Allahabad Law Reports, 114

15.Anil Kumar Singh Vs D.M., (1994) 12 LCD
1109

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. The present writ petition has filed
by petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India with the following
prayers:

"(i) To issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
order dated 10.04.2017 (Annexure No.3)
passed by District Magistrate, Bareilly and
1.11.2019 ( Annexure No.4) passed by
Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.

(ii) To issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus staying the
operation of the order dated dated 10.04.2017
(Annexure No.3) passed by District Magistrate,
Bareilly and 1.11.2019 ( Annexure No.4) passed
by Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.

(iii) To issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in this circumstances of the case to
mee the ends of justice.

(iv) To award cost of the petition to
the petitioners."

2. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was
having a fire arms licence No.1132/2013 on
which N.P.P. Rifle No.AB-84-2136 is
registered and a first information report
dated 28.07.2015 was lodged against the
petitioner and a Case Crime No.123/2015,
under sections 307/504 IPC, P.S. Bhamana,
District Bareilly was registered and on the
basis of the aforesaid F.I.R, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bareilly sent a
show cause notice dated 25.08.2016 to the
petitioner for cancelling the fire arms
licence of the petitioner and the petitioner
was directed to submit his reply. In
response to the said show cause notice,
petitioner has submitted his reply on
16.12.2016 and it was stated in the reply of
the petitioner that he was enlarged on bail
in the case and his fire arms was not used
in that incident and the session trial is
pending before the Court of Additional
Session Judge, Court No.13, Bareilly.

3. Learned counsel for he petitioner
further submitted that on the basis of the
above allegations and notice a case was
registered against the petitioner, under
Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (State
Vs. Sunil) before the Court of District
Magistrate,
Bareilly,
the
District
Magistrate, Bareily by his order dated
10.04.2017 cancelled the firm arms licence
of the petitoner. Thereafter the petitioner
challenged the above order by filing an
appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act
before the Commissioner, Bareilly Region,
Bareilly.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the petitioner was
acquitted by order dated 21.09.2017 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.13, Bareilly in Case No.191 of
2016 (State Vs. Rishipal and others). The
copy of the judgment and order dated
21.09.2017 was filed before the Court of
Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly,
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
but without considering the judgment and
order
dated
21.09.2017,
the
learned
Commissioner, Bareilly Region Bareilly
vide order dated 01.11.2019 dismissed the
appeal of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner's counsel further
submits that the impugned orders passed by
the District Magistrate, Bareilly and the
Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly
are arbitrary, perverse, without jurisdiction
and based on surmises and conjecture.

6. Learned counsel for the petiitoner
further submitted that merely named in the
criminal case is not a good ground for
cancellation of the arms licence and it is
clear cut case of the petiitoner that the fire
arms was not used in the alleged incident
on the basis of which the first information
report was lodged against the petitioner and
in the appeal the Commissioner has not
considered the judgment and order dated
21.09.2017 passed in Case No.191 of 2016
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.13, Bareily, by which, the petitioner
was acquitted in the criminal case. The
finding
recorded
by
the
learned
Commissioner that the petitioner was
acquited on the basis of benefit of doubt
and his involvement in the criminal case
cannot be denied and is not bound to
consider the order passed by the Criminal
Court once the order is passed, under
Section 17(3) of the Arms Act,1959 and the
arm license is cancelled, is a perverse
finding.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that while dismissing the
appeal of the petitioner, the learned
Commissioner has discussed about the
incident, on the basis of which, he
presumed that the petitioner is a person of
criminal manner and he may be involved in
some other criminal activities after being
acquitted in the criminal case. The order
passed by the learned Commissioner is
totally criptic and based on surmises and
conjuctures and against the provisions of
Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 therefore,
the arms licence of the petitioner may be
restored and the impugned orders may be
quashed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further drawn the attention of the Court
towards the provisions of Section 17 (3)
and 17 (7) of the Arms Act, 1959 and
submits that as per Section 17(3) of the
Arms Act, there is no ground exists against
the petitioner for cancellation of arms
licence, once the acquittal order is passed
in his favour.

9. Learned Standing Counsel who
appears on behalf of all the respondents
countered the arguments raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that there is no illegality in the
impugned orders by which the Arms
licence of the petitioner was cancelled and
if the petitioner possesses the arms licence,
it is not in the interest of public safety and
the petitioner may further involved in any
other criminal activity and may use his fire
arm.

10. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

11. From perusal of the record, this
Court finds that only one criminal case was
lodged against the petitioner being Case
Crime No.123 of 2015, under Sections 307,
504 IPC, P.S. Bhamana, District Bareilly
and on the report submitted by the
authorities concerned, the arms licence was
canceled
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Bareilly. Thereafter, in the criminal case,
6 All. Suneel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
337
the petitioner was acquitted by the
judgment and order dated 21.09.2017
passed by the learned Additonal Sessions
Judge, Court No.13, Bareilly in Case
No.191 of 2016 (State Vs. Rishipal and
others). The Appellate Court also not
considered this fact that the petitioner was
already acquitted by the Session Court and
no adverse finding was recorded by the
Court, therefore, the order rejecting the
appeal by the Commissioner Bareilly
Region, Bareilly was passed without
application of mind and was a cryptic
order. It is also not out of place to mention
here that after the acquittal order dated
21.09.2017, nothing has been mentioned in
the counter affidavit filed by the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner was
thereafter
involved
in
any
criminal
activities causing danger to public peace or
public safety or has used his fire arm.

12. From perusal of Section 17(3) and
proviso to 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 brought on record
any material to show that the petitioner was
involved in any other criminal case except
the present one.

13. It is also relevant to mention here
that in sole criminal case petitioner has
already got the order of acquital passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.13,
Bareilly
vide
order
dated
21.09.2017. It is not out of place to mention
here that as per proviso of Section 17(7) of
the Arms Act, 1959 which providing that if
the conviction is set aside in appeal or
otherwise the suspension or revocation
shall become void. It is necessary to quote
Sections 17(3) and 17(7) of the Arms Act,
1959 herein as under:-

"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
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."

14. In the facts of the present case,
this Court come to the conclusion that none
of the ground mentioned in section 17(3) of
the Arms Act 1959, is applicable in the
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner case. The petitioner was involved
in only one criminal case and was finally
acquitted by order dated 21.09.2017 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13,
Baeilly in Case No.191 of 2016, further as
provided under section 17(7) of the Arms
Act, if the conviction is set aside on appeal
or otherwise, the suspension or revocation
shall became void, therefore in that case
too also the petitioner is entitled for
restoration of his fire arm licence by the
Authority concerned, in view of the above,
the impugned orders are not sutainable in
the eyes of law.

15. It is undoubtedly to say that
merely pendency of the criminal case or
with the apprehention that the petitioner
may be involved in future in any other
criminal case cannot be a ground for
cancellation of the arms licence under the
Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear
cutt 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
which the Competent Authorities fail to
record any such finding in the impugned
orders.

16. The Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs.
District Magistrate, Basti and others, 1978
AWC 122 was pleased to held that merely
involved in the criminal case or pendency
of criminal case cannot be the ground for
cancellation of arms licence and the
pendency of criminal case cannot in any
way effect the public security or public
interest.

17. This Court in the case of
Rajendra Deo Pandey Vs. State of U.P.
And others, reported in 2012 (4) ADJ 716
was pleased to held that merely due to
pendency of criminal case or after acquittal
in the criminal case, arms licence cannot be
cancelled, the same view was followed in
the case of Rajendra Pandit Vs. State of
U.P. And others, 2012 (10) ADJ 435 .

It is relevant to mention that in
the above referred case, the acquittal order
was passed in three cases and in the fourth
case, a final report was submitted by the
police, even though, the licence was
cancelled. The High Court finally allowed
the writ petition and the District Magistrate
was directed to re-issue the arms licence to
the petitioner.

18. This issue was further dealth with
in the case of Ram Charan Vs. State of
U.P. And two others, 2016 (11) ADJ 185
and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to
consider all the previous judgment in this
regard and was pleased to observe in
paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
and 18 as under:

"11. The distinction between the
concept of public order and that of law and
order has been adverted to by the Apex
Court in a catena of decisions. The
question
whether
a
man
has
only
committed a breach of law and order or
acted in a manner leading to disturbance of
public order is a question of degree of the
reach of the act upon society is no more res
integra. In the case reported in AIR 1966
SC 740, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of
Bihar
it
was
observed
that
the
contravention 'of law' always affects 'order'
but before it could be said to affect 'public
order', it must affect the community or the
public at large. One has to imagine three
concentric circles, the largest representing
"law and order", the next representing
"public
order"
and
the
smallest
representing "security of State". An act may
6 All. Suneel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
339
affect "law and order" but not "public
order", just as an act may affect "public
order" but not "security of the State".

12. The principles settled way
back in the year 1966 in the case of Dr.
Ram Manohar Lohia (Supra) has been
repeatedly
quoted
with
respect
and
approval.

13. In 1998 (16) LCD 905, Ram
Murti Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate,
Sitapur, in paragrah 8 & 9 of the judgment,
this Court has held as follows:-

"8. It is also well settled in law
that mere pendency of criminal case or
apprehension of abuse of Arms Act, are not
sufficient ground for passing of the order of
suspension or revocation of licence under
Section 17 of the Act. A reference in this
regard may be made to the decisions of this
Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. D.M.
Almora (AIR 1993 Allahabad-291).

9. It is also well settled in law
that before passing of the order of
suspension or revocation, under clause (b)
of sub section (3) of Section 13 of the Act,
the licensing authority must apply its mind
to the question as to whether there was
eminent danger to public peace and safety
involved in the case. Licence cannot be
suspended or revoked on the ground of 'Jan
Hit'."

14. In 2002 (44) ACC 783, Habib
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in paragraph 3 & 4
of the judgment, this Court has held as
follows:-

"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 v. 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
firearm has been set aside. The present
impugned orders also suffer from the same
infirmity as was pointed out by the Division
Bench in abovementioned cases. I am in
full agreement with the view taken by the
Division Bench that these orders cannot be
sustained and deserve to be quashed and
are hereby quashed.

4. There is yet another reason
that during the pendency of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has been acquitted
from the aforesaid criminal cases and at
present there is neither any case pending,
nor any conviction has been attributed to
the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure
SA-1 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. It is submitted by
petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has
been acquitted of the charges."

15. In 2009 (10) ADJ 635, Ashiq
Hussain Vs. Commissioner, Moradabad &
Ors., in paragraph 6 of the judgment, this
Court has held as under: -

"6. The mere involvement in a
solitary criminal case cannot be a ground
for cancellation of a firearm license as held
by this Court in case of Mohd. Haroon Vs.
The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar
reported in 2003 (1) ACJ 124, unless and
until it is shown on the basis of material on
record that there was grave danger to
public law and order. In the instant case it
is only a solitary incident, which was not
arising out of any disturbance of public law
and order, that has been made the basis for
ordering cancellation."

16. In 2011 (29) LCD 1045,
Rama Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., a
Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 10
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
& 11 of the judgment of this Court has held
as follows:-

"10. In Ram Murli Madhukar Vs.
District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16)
LCD 905], this Court has held that licence
can not 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 Division
Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra Vs.
The District Magistrate, Basti & others,
wherein the Division Bench relying upon
the earlier decision of Masiuddin Vs.
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. State of U.P. Reported in 2002
ACC 783, Ram Sanehi Vs. Commissioner,
Devi Patan Division, Gonda & another."

17. In 2011 (29) LCD 829,
Hiramani Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
this Court in paragraph no.8 of the
judgment has held as follows:-

"8. This Court in the case of
Ashok Rao v. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2010 (68) ACC 441 while
considering the authority to be exercised
under Section 17 of the Indian Arms Act
has taken the view that mere pendency of
criminal case cannot be ground for
cancellation of firearm license unless and
until finding is returned by the authority
concerned that possession of firearm has
the tendency of threatening public peace
and public safety."

18. In 1994 (12) LCD 1109, Anil
Kumar
Singh
Vs.
Distt.
Magistrate,
Pratapgarh, in paragraph no. 6 of the
judgment, this Court has been held as
follows:-

"6. ...Therefore, it is clear that
at the time of passing the order order
dated 6-2-79 by the Commissioner,
there was no ground on which the gun
licence of the petitioner could have
been cancelled. Both the grounds were
wiped off before passing of the order of
the learned Commissioner and the
learned Commissioner could not have
passed this order unless there was some
fresh material against the petitioner be
that date. In this connection it will by
useful to refer to the case of Ram Bodh
Singh v. State of U.P. & others, 1985
(11) Allahabad Law Reports, 114, in
which it has been held that once
petitioner was acquitted those cases
could
not
furnish
material
for
cancellation of his licence. Therefore,
on the date on which the Commissioner
passed his licence. Therefore, on the
date on which the Commissioner passed
his order, it cannot be said that the
cancellation of licence was in the public
interest and this fact could not be
substantiated by the State."

19. This Court after considering the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and from perusal of record
and considering the case laws on the issue
involved observed here that in the present
case the petitioner was involved in sole
criminal case and has been acquitted by the
order dated 21.09.2017 in Case No.191 of
2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.13, Bareilly and as per the
provision contained under section 17(7) of
the Arms Act, 1959, if the conviction is set
aside in appeal or otherwise the suspension
6 All. Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
341
or revocation shall become void, therefore
the arm licence has to be restored
considering the provisions contained under
Sections 17(3) and 17(7) of the Arms Act,
1959. The fire arm licence of the petitioner
could not have been cancelled in public interest
as has been done in the present case, no incident
of breach of security of the public peace or
public safety at the behest of the petitioner has
been pointed out. The petitioner has no previous
criminal history. The police report on the basis
of which the proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner does not indicate that the
petitioner had utilized the fire arm during the
said incicent, no such averment was made by
the authorities concerned. There is nothing on
record to establish that petitioner was involved
in the act resulting in disturbance to public
peace or public safety.

20. In view of the well-settled legal
proposition and the relevant case law referred
above and the provisions contained under
Sections 17(3) and 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959
and going through the entire facts, this Court is
of the view that the impugned order dated
10.04.2017 passed by District Magistrate,
Bareilly and order dated 01.11.2019 passed by
the Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly
are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore
both the orders are hereby quashed. The writ
petition is allowed.

21. The matter is remitted back to the
District Magistrate, Bareily, respndent No.3 to
pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh, for
restoring the arms licence of the petitioner in
accordance with law, preferrably within a
period of two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order
before him and communicate the same to the
petitioner forthwith.

22. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)06ILR A341
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABHINAV UPADHYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Writ-C No. 46666 of 2013

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Parul
Srivastava,
Sri
Anupam
Kulshreshtha, Sri Namit Srivastava, Sri
Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Registration Act,
1908 - Sections 17 - Registration of
three sale-deeds rejected -- Documents of
which registration is compulsory , Sections 18
- Documents of which registration is optional,
Sections 32 - Persons to present documents
for registration and Sections 33 - Power of
Attorney recognizable for purposes of Section
32 - Power of Attorney Act, 1882 - Section 4
- Deposit of original instruments, creating
powers-of-attorney - Indian Stamp Act,1899
- no bar in the Act for execution of sale deed
on the basis of unregistered power-ofattorney -object of registration - designed to
guard
against
fraud
by
obtaining
a
contemporaneus
publication
and
an
unimpeachable record of each document -
instant case - no allegation of fraud has been
raised - duty cast on the registering officer
under Section 32 of the Act -only to satisfy
himself that the document was executed by
the person by whom it purports to have been
signed - registrar upon being so satisfied and
upon being presented with a document to be
registered
had
to
proceed
with
the
registration of the same.(Para-19,32)