NARESH KUMAR DHIMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Naresh Kumar Dhiman
State of Uttarakhand And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. -
(1.) HEARD Mr. Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Menka Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner has a valid firearms licence issued by the licencing authority under the Arms Act. The said licence pertains to N.P. Bore Pistol No. 12012733. It was renewed from time to time by the licencing authority and, lastly, it was renewed in the year 2001. While the said licenced arms was in the shop of an arms and ammunition dealer, namely, M/s. Subhash Chandra, the said shop was sealed by the police authority in the year 2001 in connection with some irregularities with the shop. Since 2001 the petitioner has been persuading the licencing authority to release his firearm as the petitioner has a valid licence for the same. But all in vain.
(2.) WHEN the said arms was not returned to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 1413 of 2008 (M/S) before this Court, which was disposed of directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of arms. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Haridwar passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner for releasing the arms. Feeling aggrieved by this, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the year 2008, the licence of the petitioner's pistol was renewed and it was valid upto 31.12.2012 and, as a matter of fact, the petitioner did not possess the said arms as it was in the custody of the respondent authority. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the case and submitted that the petitioner has criminal background and there are many criminal cases pending against him for the charges punishable under Section 120B, 195A, 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case against him and there is no reasonable cause now for the respondent authority to withhold the firearm. Interestingly, the licence of arms, which is presently in the custody of the respondent authority, has already been renewed whereas the renewal of licence is effective till 31.12.2012. Under these circumstances, there is no plausible reason not to release the arms in favour of the petitioner. So the petitioner contends.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.