# NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR v. UMESH KUMAR - **Citation:** [2008] 10 S.C.R. 48 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2008-06-19 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2003 - **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, G.S. Singhvi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/national-capital-territory-of-delhi-anr-v-umesh-kumar-23471 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote ARMS ACT, 1959 '-' S. 17(3) - Cancellation of fire-arm licence - On the c ground of applicant being involved in a criminal case for offences ulss.:)02, 307 rlw s.34 IPC and ss.25,27 and 54 of Arms Act - Cancellation upheld by Lieutenant Governor - High Court, in writ petition, setting aside the cancellation order holding that conviction of applicant has been set aside - Operaj.- D tion of order of High Court stayed by Supreme Court - Order of conviction of applicant pending consideration in criminal ' appeal before High Court - Held: Orders staying operation ~ ~ of High Court's order to continue till the disposal of appeal by. I the High Court. E ## Text .. [2008) 10 S.C.R. 48 ->f ' A NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. v. UMESH KUMAR (Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2003) B JUNE 19, 2008 ~ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] ARMS ACT, 1959 '-' S. 17(3) - Cancellation of fire-arm licence - On the c ground of applicant being involved in a criminal case for offences ulss.:)02, 307 rlw s.34 IPC and ss.25,27 and 54 of Arms Act - Cancellation upheld by Lieutenant Governor - High Court, in writ petition, setting aside the cancellation order holding that conviction of applicant has been set aside - Operaj.- D tion of order of High Court stayed by Supreme Court - Order of conviction of applicant pending consideration in criminal ' appeal before High Court - Held: Orders staying operation ~ ~ of High Court's order to continue till the disposal of appeal by. I the High Court. E CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2003 From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. W. No. 207/2001 -l F P.P. Malhotra, A.S.G., Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.S. Mahra, Avatar Singh Rawat and Anil Katiyar for the Appellants. K.K. Tyagi, I. Ahamad and P. Narasimhan for the Respondent. G The Order of the Court was delivered by Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT. Heard learned counsel for the par- )-- ties. H 48 NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. 49 v. UMESH KUMAR [Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT.] , . .>- The challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by the A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the Criminal Writ Petition No. 207/2001 by Order dated 7.12.2001. The background facts in nutshell are as under:-· The respondent had been granted license for a .315 Bore B Rifle. The Lt. Governor, Delhi upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) Delhi, in Appeal in terms of Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (In short the Act). The Deputy Commissioner had directed cancellation of license on the ground that the respondent who was working as a Con- c stable was involved in criminal offence and therefore, it was not in the interest of justice to continue currency of the license granted to him. Therefore, it was cancelled. The appeal before the Lt. Governor, as noted above, did not bring any relief to the appellant. The High Court was moved thereafter. The High Court noted factual background as follows: D The respondent's license was cancelled on the ground that that he was found involved ir. case FIR No. 254/1991 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section E 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and Sections 25, 27 and 54 of the Arms Act. On the recommendation of the Crime Branch, notice was issued by the Dy.- Commissioner of Police (Licensing) to show cause as to why the arms license should not be cancelled in the interest of public safety and peace as he has rendered himself to be unsuitable to hold license. F The license was cancelled in exercise of power conferred under Section 17(3) of the Act. The Lt. Governor of Delhi as noted above dismissed the appeal. The High Court noted that the respondent was deployed in Delhi Police and during his involvement in the aforesaid crime was suspended and reG mained suspended till he was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. After the acquittal, suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in servic.e on 19.1.2000. Before the High Court the stand of the present respondent was that the grounds on which the licence was cancelled did H 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A not exist any further and there was no reason as to why the ap- .,, peal should have been dismissed. - It was pointed out by the High Court that on acquittal the ·, t respondent was found to be fit enough to continue in his post. B When he was found to be so fit, there was no reason as to why .. he should not have a license for a gun. A reference was also )' made to Clause 7 of Section 17 of the Act which provides that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspenr sion or revocation of the license by the court convicting the holder of the license shall become void. According to the High Court1 c on the same analogy, when the respondent's involvement was not found acceptable the licence which was cancelled, ought to have been restored. Learned counsel for the State submitted before the High Court that the State had already filed an appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondent. The High D Court was of the view that filing of an appeal cannot have any r effect on the judgment of the acquittal. In case acquittal is set Iaside it was open to the authorities to take necessary action. • Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact tthat appeal was pending consideration, should have been given l E due weightage. Even otherwise, a person serving in the Police Force and charged with serious offences should not be allowed to have a license. According to him grant of license is discretionary and there is no right in that sense· to have a IiF cense. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court. --I We find that whiie issuing notice this Court had directed stay of the impugned order by Order 2.12.2002. Subsequently, leave was granted by Order dated 2.5.2003 and the interim ~ G order was made absolute. In other words, the High Court's Order is not operative as of now. We are of the considered view that interest of justice would be best served if the orders passed by this Court staying op- ,__ eration of the High Court's order are continued ti!I the disH posal of the Appeal by the High Court. We make it clear by NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. 51 v; UMESH KUMAR [Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT.] giving this direction, we have not expressed any opinion on A the merits of the case. However, we request the High Court to dispose of the Appeal, if pending, as early as practicable preferably by the end of year 2008. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 8 R.P. Appeal disposed of.