# Umesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 558
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-25
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 60228 of 2013
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umesh-chandra-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46615
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. The Arms Act, 1959 - Section 17 - Fire Arm
License - Cancellation - Ground of pendency of
criminal case and probability of its misuse in
future - Relevancy - Subsequent acquittal
from criminal case - Effect - Held, firearm
could be suspended or revoked by the licensing
authority on the ground that it was necessary
for public peace or for the public safety and if
any of the condition of the license has been
contravened - A perusal of acquittal order does
not show the use of firearm. The reason for
cancellation of the petitioner's firearm license
mentioned in the order has been wiped out.
(Para 10 and 18)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
items given by the petitioner and insofar as it
(respondent no.3) contests claim of the petitioner
in respect of any building remaining incomplete
then in regard to that, proper course of action
shall be followed by the petitioner, as has been
directed by the order dated 17.02.2015 passed by
O.S.D. Ghaziabad Development Authority.

173. In view of above, we direct the
respondent no.3 - Shipra Estate Pvt. Ltd. - to
ensure compliance of the order dated 17.02.2015
passed by the O.S.D., Ghaziabad Development
Authority for which fresh period of three months
is allowed to it. The period of three months will
be counted as commencing from 01.01.2022 and
shall automatically come to an end three months
next after 01.01.2022 as above, that is on
31.03.2022.

174. With these observations, writ petition
no.11072 of 2017 is disposed of.

175. No orders as to cost.
----------
(2021)12ILR A558
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 60228 of 2013

Umesh Chandra Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, Sri Santosh Kumar
Pandey, Sri Shobhit Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. The Arms Act, 1959 - Section 17 - Fire Arm
License - Cancellation - Ground of pendency of
criminal case and probability of its misuse in
future - Relevancy - Subsequent acquittal
from criminal case - Effect - Held, firearm
could be suspended or revoked by the licensing
authority on the ground that it was necessary
for public peace or for the public safety and if
any of the condition of the license has been
contravened - A perusal of acquittal order does
not show the use of firearm. The reason for
cancellation of the petitioner's firearm license
mentioned in the order has been wiped out.
(Para 10 and 18)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Suneel Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2020 (113) ACC 1
2. Ram Prasad Vs Commissioner & ors.; 2020 (113)
ACC 571
3. Masiuddin Naimuddin Vs Commissioner, Allahabad
& ors.; 1972 AIR (Allahabad) 510
4. Habib Vs St. of U.P.; 2002 (44) ALL Cri Cases 783
5. Sheo Prasad Misra Vs D.M. Basti & ors.; 1978 AWC
122
6. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs St. of Bihar; AIR 1966
SC 740
7. Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs District Magistrate, Basti &
ors.; 1978 AWC 122
8. Masiuddin Vs Commissioner Allahabad; 1972 AIR
Allahabad 510
9. Harprasad Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2005 (52) ACC 226
(Alld)
10. Vishal Varshney Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2009 (75)
ALR 593
11. Suneel Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2020 (113) ACC 1
12. Ram Prasad Vs Commissioner & ors.; 2020 (113)
571
13. Ashiq Hussain Vs Commissioner, Moradabad &
ors. 2009 (10) ADJ 635
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
11 All. Umesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559
Standing Counsel for the State and perused the
record.

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

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 11.1.2013 passed by the respondent
no.2 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition) and
order dated 5.9.2013 passed by the respondent
no.3 (Annexure no.2 to this writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding
the
respondents to return / issue the arm licence
no.A.B. 13832017 of the petitioner.

(iii) issue a writ order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost to the petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the
writ petition are that petitioner was granted an
arms licence for rifle bearing no. A-B 13832017
after due enquiry. A criminal case bearing Case
No.1189 of 2010, under Sections 452, 323 504,
506 and 427 I.P.C. was lodged against the
petitioner by his brother which was pending at
that time. The above mentioned rifle was robbed
from the petitioner by the elder brother- Munish
Chandra Gupta hence F.I.R. was also lodged by
petitioner on 21.02.2012, under Section 395, 397
I.P.C. Petitioner was issued show cause notice as
to why his licence be not cancelled under
Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, petitioner
replied the notice but respondent no.2- District
Magistrate, Moradabad cancelled the petitioner's
firearm licence by order dated 11.01.2013 in
view of pendency of criminal case against the
petitioner as well as on the ground that petitioner
can misuse his firearm in future.

4. Aggrieved from the order dated
11.01.2013 petitioner filed an appeal under
Section 18 of the Arms Act before respondent
no.3-
Commissioner
Moradabad,
District-
Moradabad, which was registered as Appeal No.
25 of 2012-13 (Umesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State
of U.P.), the appeal filed by petitioner was also
dismissed by cryptic order dated 05.09.2013
hence this writ petition.

5. During pendency of the writ petition
before this Hon'ble Court petitioner was
acquitted by judgment dated 04.04.2015 passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case
Crime No. 1189 of 2010, under Sections 452,
323, 504, 506 & 427 I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines,
District- Moradabad. The copy of the judgment
has been annexed as Annexure No. RA-1 to the
rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner on
01.05.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that petitioner was implicated in a
false criminal case in which he was acquitted by
judgment dated 04.04.2015 and from the
judgment, it reveals that firearm of the petitioner
has not been used at all. He further submits that
mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any
way affect the public security or public safety, as
such, firearm licence of the petitioner could not
be cancelled. He further submits that at the time
of cancellation of firearm licence of the
petitioner i.e. 11.01.2013, criminal case was
pending but during pendency of the writ petition
before this Hon'ble Court, petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal case. Learned counsel
for the petitioner finally submits that ground for
issue of show cause notice, suspension and
ultimately cancellation of the petitioner's firearm
licence is that one and precisely one criminal
case which was registered against the petitioner
and in view of the provisions contained under
Section 17 of the Arms Act, petitioner's firearm
licence cannot be cancelled. Learned counsel for
the petitioner placed reliance upon the five
judgments of this Hon'ble Court in which it has
been held that firearm licence cannot be
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cancelled on the ground of mere involvement in
criminal case, Honb'le Court has also noticed
that the licensee have been subsequently
acquitted in the criminal case lodged against
him. The reference of above judgements are
given hereunder:

(I) 2020 (113) ACC 1 (Suneel Vs. State of
U.P. and Others).

(ii) 2020 (113) ACC 571 (Ram Prasad Vs.
Commissioner & Others).

(iii)
1972
AIR
(Allahabad)
510
(Masiuddin Naimuddin Vs. Commissioner,
Allahabad and Others).

(iv) 2002 (44) ALL Cri Cases 783 (Habib
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh).

(v) 1978 AWC 122 (Sheo Prasad Misra
Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and Others).

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel
has supported the impugned orders and
submitted that even after acquittal petitioner can
misuse his firearm if the firearm licence of the
petitioner is restored, so impugned orders
deserve to be maintained.

8. I have considered the submissions made
by the parties and perused the record.

9. Section 17 of the Act empowers the
licensing Authority to vary, suspend or revoke
any firearm licence. Section 17 is reproduced 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 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 sub-section (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 subsection (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 relation to the suspension or revocation
of a licence by such authority.
11 All. Umesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561

(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."

10. A perusal of sub-section (3) of Section
17 of the Act would show that firearm could be
suspended or revoked by the licencing authority
on the ground that it was necessary for public
peace or for the public safety and if any of the
condition of the licence has been contravened.

11. Now it will be appropriate to refer to
the law bearing on the matter.

12. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State
of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740, 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 orders" and the smallest
representing "security of state". An act may
affect "law and order" but not "public order",
just as an act may affect "public order" but not
"security of state".

13. In Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs. District
Magistrate, Basti & Others reported in 1978
AWC 122, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble
Court relaying upon the earlier decision in
Masiuddin
Vs.
Commissioner
Allahabad
reported in 1972 AIR Allahabad 510 held that
mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any
way affect the public security or public interest
and hence an order cancelling or revoking a
firearm licence only on the ground of licensee's
involvement in a criminal case cannot be
sustained.

14. In the matter of Harprasad Vs. State of
U.P. and Others reported in 2005 (52) ACC 226
(Alld) this Court after considering the law
already pronounced on this point has finally
allowed the petition and quashed the impugned
order passed by the appellate Authority.
Relevant paragraph of this judgment are being
quoted here:-

"In full Bench decision of this Court
rendered in Channga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh 1984 (10) AIR 223 and Kailash
Nath and Others Vs. Sate of U.P. and Others
1985 (22) ACC 353 and in the case of Rana
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1985 (Supp)
ACC 235, it has been held that mere pendency
of the Criminal case(s) is no ground for
cancellation of arms licence. The full Bench
decision of Channga Prasad Sahu was also
considered
in
Sadri
Ram
Vs.
District
Magistrate Azamgarh and Others 1998 (37)
ACC 830".

15. In Vishal Varshney Vs. State of U.P.
and Others reported in 2009 (75) ALR 593, this
Court held that cancellation of the firearm
licence only on the ground of apprehension or
likelihood of misuse of firearm by the licence is
illegal.

16. In a recent decision which was cited by
counsel for the petitioner in the case of Suneel
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2020
(113)
ACC
1
and
Ram
Prasad
Vs.
Commissioner and Others reported in 2020
(113) 571, this Court held that mere involvement
in criminal case is no ground for cancellation of
licensee's firearm as well as apprehension of
abuse of arms is not a sufficient ground for
passing of an order of cancellation of licence
under Section 17 of the Act. It has also been
held that in a pending criminal case against the
licence if acquittal has been ordered by criminal
Court then the very basis of the cancellation of
arm licence will vanish.

17. In Ashiq Hussain Vs. Commissioner,
Moradabad & Others reported in 2009 (10)
ADJ 635, 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 law and order,
that has been made the basis for ordering
cancellation."

18. This Court after considering the
contention raised by learned counsel for the
parties, perusal of record and considering the
case laws mentioned above observed here that in
the present case, petitioner was involved in sole
criminal case and has been acquitted also by
criminal Court by judgment dated 04.04.2015, a
perusal of acquittal order does not show the use
of firearm. The reason for cancellation of the
petitioner's firearm licence mentioned in the
order dated 11.01.2013 has been wiped out.
Respondent no.2 and 3 have failed to consider
the provisions of Section 17 of the Act regarding
revocation of the licence, accordingly, impugned
orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 cannot
be sustained.

19. In view of the settled legal position
mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed.
The
order
dated
11.01.2013
passed
by
respondent
no.
2-
District
Magistrate-
Moradabad and appellate order dated 05.09.2013
passed by respondent no.3- Commissioner
Moradabad, District- Moradabad, are hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted back before
respondent no.2 to pass a reasoned and speaking
order afresh for restoring the arms licence of the
petitioner after calling a fresh report in
accordance with law preferably within a period
of two months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order before him.

20. Writ petition is allowed. No orders as
to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A562
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 5312 of 2021

Smt. Tanveer Fatima ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Syed Azizul Hasan Rizvi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 420-challenge to-summoning order and
non-bailable warrant-husband of the petitioner
transferred a shop to her wife by registered
sale deed-petitioner was in physical possession