Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.09.2004 passed by District Magistrate, Chitrakoot cancelling arms licence of Petitioner in exercise of its power under Section 17 of Arms Act and appellate order dated 08.07.2005 rejecting appeal of Petitioner passed by Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Region, Banda.
(2.) IT is submitted that the impugned orders have been passed mainly on the ground of involvement of Petitioner in a criminal case though in the said criminal case, i.e., Criminal Case No. 16 of 2003 the Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 23.04.2005 and, therefore, impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on a Single Judge decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 61649 of 2005, Awadhesh Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 11.10.2006. A perusal of the impugned orders however show that besides reference of certain criminal cases registered against Petitioner the District Magistrate has recorded a finding that since several cases were registered against Petitioner at Police Station Bargarh, he concealed his criminal history and obtained arms licence from Police Station Sohagi, District Rewa (Madhya Pradesh). He is a person who has terrorised people in the area and, therefore, allowing arms licence to Petitioner would not be in public interest. Nothing has been said by Petitioner on this aspect of the matter in entire writ petition to challenge the said finding. This conduct and attitude of Petitioner clearly shows that he is not an honest person and has tried to obtain arms licence by concealment of fact regarding his criminal history.
(3.) UNDER Section 17(3) the District Magistrate is empowered to cancel an arms licence in public interest when he satisfies himself that cancellation is in public interest. The conduct of Petitioner in concealment of his antecedents for obtaining arms licence, may be outside the State of U.P., in my view, is a relevant factor to be considered by District Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 17 of Arms Act. The decision relied on by learned Counsel for Petitioner in Awadhesh Pandey (supra) clearly shows that therein the cancellation was made mainly on account of involvement of that Petitioner in a criminal case in which he was acquitted and nothing more was noticed by the Court. This is not a situation here. The criminal history of Petitioner has been referred only to show antecedents but it is the cumulative effect of the fact which has been considered by District Magistrate in passing the impugned order and has been upheld in appeal by appellate court.;