# Vishram Yadav v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1044
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-12
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishram-yadav-v-commissioner-devi-patan-mandal-gonda-anr-44119
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Gun No.10075/93, License No.185. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda. Thereafter, the firearm license of
the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate. The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned
Commissioner, who after setting aside the order dated 28.05.2009 remanded the matter to the District
Magistrate for consideration afresh, and also directed to pass appropriate order after providing adequate
opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 24.04.2013, the District Magistrate,
Gonda reiterated his earlier order of rejection without considering and dealing with the pleas as raised by the
petitioner.

Mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis of cancelling the
license. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a political person and was the Gram pradhan of
the Village. Moreoso, in the criminal case, petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court and the judgment
of acquittal was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court but the Appellate Authority ignored this vital
aspect of the matter, which is a serious omission on his part.

It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arm is
not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section
17 (3) of the Act. Here, as averred above, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal
case.

The licensing authority is directed to renew the firearm license of the petitioner, which was
cancelled, within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

Held: Para-
8 All. Vishram Yadav Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Anr.
1045
Case Law discussed:
Ram Sanehi vs. Commissioner Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another [2004(22) LCD 1643],
 Rayees Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others [2002(20) LCD 913],
Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others; 1979 (16) ACC 6 (sum),
Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783,
Devi Patan Division, Gonda & another [supra],

## Text

1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 1044
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Misc. Single No.- 1849 Of 2015

Vishram Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nitin Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued a firearm license of S.B.B.L.
Gun No.10075/93, License No.185. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda. Thereafter, the firearm license of
the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate. The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned
Commissioner, who after setting aside the order dated 28.05.2009 remanded the matter to the District
Magistrate for consideration afresh, and also directed to pass appropriate order after providing adequate
opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 24.04.2013, the District Magistrate,
Gonda reiterated his earlier order of rejection without considering and dealing with the pleas as raised by the
petitioner.

Mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis of cancelling the
license. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a political person and was the Gram pradhan of
the Village. Moreoso, in the criminal case, petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court and the judgment
of acquittal was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court but the Appellate Authority ignored this vital
aspect of the matter, which is a serious omission on his part.

It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arm is
not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section
17 (3) of the Act. Here, as averred above, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal
case.

The licensing authority is directed to renew the firearm license of the petitioner, which was
cancelled, within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

Held: Para-
8 All. Vishram Yadav Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Anr.
1045
Case Law discussed:
Ram Sanehi vs. Commissioner Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another [2004(22) LCD 1643],
 Rayees Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others [2002(20) LCD 913],
Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others; 1979 (16) ACC 6 (sum),
Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783,
Devi Patan Division, Gonda & another [supra],

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the cancellation of his firearm licence by the District Magistrate
vide order dated 18.2.2015 and rejection of his appeal by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal,
Gonda, vide order dated 18.2.2015 preferred against the order of cancellation, the petitioner has
filed the instant writ petition.

3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued a
firearm license of S.B.B.L. Gun No.10075/93, License No.185. An FIR was lodged against the
petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act at Police Station
Khargupur, District Gonda. Thereafter, the firearm license of the petitioner was cancelled by the
District Magistrate vide order dated 28.05.2009. Against the order dated 28.05.2009, the petitioner
preferred an Appeal before the learned Commissioner, who after setting aside the order dated
28.05.2009 remanded the matter to the District Magistrate for consideration afresh, and also
directed to pass appropriate order after providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter,
vide impugned order dated 24.04.2013, the District Magistrate, Gonda reiterated his earlier order of
rejection without considering and dealing with the pleas as raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the
impugned order of cancellation of firearm licence is wholly erroneous and against the provisions of
Arms Act.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned orders
have been passed without considering the facts in its entirety and in utter disregard to the law as
propounded by this Court in number of cases, namely, Ram Sanehi vs. Commissioner Devi Patan
Division, Gonda and another [2004(22) LCD 1643] and Rayees Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and
others [2002(20) LCD 913].

5. Concluding his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds
which are mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act are not at all attracted in the case of the
petitioner and the petitioner has not contravened any of the conditions as enumerated in the licence
and as such the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate as also the order passed by the
Appellate Authority is illegal and legally not sustainable.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, while refuting the allegations of the petitioner, submitted that
the impugned orders were passed strictly in accordance with law and provisions of Arms Act and
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

both the orders do not suffer from any infirmity. The licensing authority after considering the
material facts on record has given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner has violated the
terms and conditions of arm license.

7. 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;
1979 (16) ACC 6 (sum), 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, and Ram Sanehi Vs.
Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda & another [supra] and other cases.

8. Mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis
of cancelling the license. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a political person and
was the Gram pradhan of the Village. Moreoso, in the criminal case, petitioner has been acquitted
by the Trial Court and the judgment of acquittal was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court
but the Appellate Authority ignored this vital aspect of the matter, which is a serious omission on
his part.

9. The order passed by the District Magistrate cannot be upheld in absence of anything as
contained in Section 17(3) of the Act. The Appellate Court has also committed an error in not
considering the facts in its correct prospective and has also failed to appreciate the grounds
mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act regarding revocation or for suspending a licence. It is
well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arm is not
sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section 17 (3)
of the Act. Here, as averred above, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case. In the
backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be legally
sustained.

10. Accordingly, the orders dated 18.2.2015 passed by the Commissioner and the order
dated 24.4.2013 passed by the District Magistrate are hereby quashed. The licensing authority is
directed to renew the firearm license of the petitioner, which was cancelled, within a maximum
period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

11. The writ petition stands allowed in above terms.
---------
8 All. Daya Ram Kurmi Alias Juraha Kurmi Vs State Of U.P.
1047
(2016) 8 ILRA 1047
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 1995 Of 2014

Daya Ram Kurmi Alias Juraha Kurmi ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Jainendra Kumar Mishra, Deepak Dubey, Jitendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

The aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.1995 of 2014 has been preferred by the appellant, Daya Ram Kurmi @
Juraha Kurmi against the judgment and order of conviction dated 09.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge,convicting to appellant under Section 302 IPC is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of all the
charges framed against him. Appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith unless and until he is wanted in
any other case.

The allegations that informant's brother Laxmi Bhurji son of Suraj Deen was returning home after taking bath
at tube-well of Ram Asrey Kurmi and had walked some paces on Pakka Road, when accused Daya Ram Kurmi
@ Juraha Kurmi resident of Jhuraha Khera alias Mampur, in company with one more person came out of
Bilayati Babul bushes, caught hold of him. When he raised alarm then the first informant and his wife Smt.
Somwati-who were going for marketing at Bindki-saw the incident. It was around 2.00 P.M., Daya Ram Kurmi
alias Juraha Kurmi and one more person possessing country made pistol in their hands, caught his brother and
Daya Ram Kurmi alias Juraha Kurmi with intention to kill fired on his brother and his companion also fired by
his country made gun. Alarm was raised by informant and his wife and a number of villagers arrived on the
spot. In the meanwhile, the assailants made their escape good by disappearing towards the eastern side of
'Babool' bushes. The informant's brother died on the spot. The dead body was lying on the road. Motive for
committing the offence was indicated in the first information report itself that there was some dispute with
regard to insisting on obtaining forceful possession of 1/3 share of Chheda Ram in the house built on the
leased land of the first informant and this was opposed by the deceased Laxmi Bhurji. Because of aforesaid
enmity, first informant's brother was killed by the accused persons. It has further been alleged in the first
information report that unknown person can be identified in case he appears before the first informant.

In this factual backdrop, it can hardly be believed that he saw the occurrence of firing which he claims to have
taken place before him. Since contents of the first information report were neither dictated by him nor were
read-over to him, whole first information report becomes handi work of third person. In such circumstances, it
would have been proper for the prosecution to have examined the scribe Krishna Kumar who could have
elaborated on point of dictation of written report by the first informant. In the absence of non examination of