- (1.) The petitioner, who is freedom fighter, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order dated 16-1-1987 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (City) Kanpur Nagar revoking his fire arm licence in respect of a DBBL gun (licence No. 2909) and a revolver (licence No. 8757) and the order dated 26-2-1990 passed by the Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad in appeal directed against the aforesaid order of revocation seeking the relief for quashing these orders.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the controversy in the petition are that: (a) the petitioner, who is a freedom fighter, political and social worker having received a recognition for his service from the people of Kanpur, was elected as Corporator in the Municipal Corporation, Kanpur Nagar and was also elected as Dy. Mayor. (b) The petitioner was a licensee in respect of a gun and a revolver. On account of a criminal case (crime No. 824/76) under Ss. 147/ 148 / 149 / 307, IPC the fire arms of the petitioner were deposited with the local dealer M/s. Swadeshi Gun House, Meston Road, Kanpur and after a lapse of about five years, the petitioner was issued two separate show cause notices for revocation of his two fire arm licences. In both these notices, the foundation for revocation of the fire arm licences was involvement of the petitioner in criminal case (crime No. 824 of 1976) as reported by the police. The notices were duly replied to by the petitioner on 15-7-1981. (c) The Sessions trial No. 255/ M of 1977 State v. Kishan Sharma and others under Ss. 147/148/149/307, IPC wherein the petitioner was one of the accused, resulted in acquittal and the petitioner filed a certified copy of the judgment relating to his acquittal in the above case before the District Magistrate along with an application for restoration of his fire arms and dropping of the proceedings for revocation of his licences. A report was asked from the Senior Supdt, of Police, Kanpur regarding acquittal, which was submitted in I 1-4-1984 confirming the fact of the acquittal of the petitioner in the above case and recommending for restoration of the fire arm licences of the petitioner. There was another case (crime No. 609 of 1981) under Ss. 453/186/504/ 506, IPC which was subsequent one and it also resulted in acquittal on 13-12-1984. The petitioner filed a certified copy of the judgment relating to his acquittal before the Addl. District Magistrate, . (d) Addl. District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Magistrate) passed an order revoking both the fire arm licences of the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal u/ S. 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner). In appeal the order of the District Magistrate was maintained and the appeal was dismissed on 20-2-1984. (e) The aforesaid two orders were challenged by way of a writ petition No. of 1988 (Sita Ram Dixit v. Commissioner) in this court, wherein this court while setting aside the order of the Commissioner dated 20-4-1987 and 5-1-1988 directed for deciding the appeal on merit after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Consequent upon the remand by this Court, the Commissioner decided the appeal on 26-2-1990. These two orders dated 16-1-1987 and 26-2-1990 are subject matter of controversy in the present petition.
(3.) The District Magistrate while accepting the position of acquittal of the petitioner in criminal cases (crime No. 824 of 1976) and (crime No. 609 of 1981) revoked the fire arm licences of the petitioner on the assumption that the petitioner has got enmity with other persons and his son Sri Alok Kumar Dixit is a noted criminal and the possibility of the misuse of the fire arms cannot be ruled out. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal saying that the petitioner is a person of criminal tendency and his son is a notorious criminal and the possibility of the mis use of the fire arm by him cannot be ruled out. Further it was stated that, in the criminal cases the petitioner was given benefit of doubt and there was no recommendation of the police for restoration of the licences and the Senior Supdt. of Police did not submit any such report. He only forwarded the police report to the District Magistrate without making any recommendation.;