- (1.) The petitioner was a licencee in respect of a revolver (Licence No. 3794/ DM/Ghazipur/1975) and a D.B.B.L. gun (Licence No. 8024/122-G Bazpur). In the night between 12/13-3-1982 dacaoits raided his house. He used his firearms in his self defence. This use of the firearms in self defence has resulted in revocation of his firearms licences.
(2.) By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-2-1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as "the District Magistrate") revoking the aforesaid firearms licences and the order dated 4-2-1985 passed in appeal there against by the Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") affirming the same.
(3.) Brief facts leading to the controversy involved in the present petition are- (a) That in the night between 12/13-3-1982 while the dacoits raided his house, the petitioner used the firearms in his self defence, in which exercise one of the dacoits who received injuries, died later on in the hospital. Thereupon a criminal case No. 48 of 1982 under S. 382, IPC was registered against one Naurang wherein the petitioner was one of the prosecution witnesses. This case, on account of the non-appearance of the accused, was closed under the orders of the Special Judge, Nainital, who directed for investigation against the petitioner after registering a case under Ss. 302/307, IPC. Thus case No. 48A of 1982 was registered against the petitioner and simultaneously a report was sent to the District Magistrate for revocation of the licences of the petitioner on the basis that a criminal case under Ss. 302/307, IPC, has been registered against the petitioner under the orders of the Court and the petitioner had admitted that he used his firearms in self defence. Thereupon the District Magistrate gave a show cause notice to the petitioner, who replied the same. The District Magistrate, on the basis of the police report, revoked both the licences of the petitioner vide his order dated 4-2-1984. (b) That the aforesaid order of revocation was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeal, a final report, submitted after investigation, in Case No. 48-A of 1982, was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital on 21-8-1985 and this fact was brought to the notice of the Commissioner that in view of the acceptance of the final report on 21-8-1985 no case is pending against the petitioner and there has remained no scope, even for entertaining any doubt regarding non bona fide use of the firearms by the petitioner. The Commissioner did not probe into the matter in the proper perspective and dismissed the appeal in an arbitrary manner on 4-2-1985 maintaining the order of revocation passed by the District Magistrate. In the order, he observed that the main point which comes to light is that in the night between 12/13-3-1982 the petitioner certainly used his firearms, which he had himself admitted. No counter-affidavit, in spite of sufficient opportunity having been granted has been filed in the case since 1985.;