ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15-12-1997 and 19-6-1998, Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition, respectively, under the provisions of the Arms Act revoking the license of his fire-arm.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. On 02-05-1996, petitioner has been served with a show cause notice dated 08-04-1996 under Section 17 of the Arms Act and in reply thereto he filed an objection stating therein that he was never involved in criminal case and he has not misused his gun as is alleged in the show cause notice. A case under Section 302 of I.P.C. was registered at Kabrai police station at crime No. 44 of 1996 and police has challaned the petitioner. Further a case under Section 25, Arms Act has also been registered under crime No. 46 of 1996. It is on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the petitioner has been served with the aforesaid show cause notice. A perusal of the order of revocation of the license demonstrates that petitioner is a person connected with the crime referred to above and therefore he is not a person with whom the fire-arm should be retained in public interest. The appellate authority has also taken the same view, thus this writ petition. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the license under Arms Act has been dealt with by a Division bench of this Court reported in 1978 All WC 122, Sheo Prasad Misra v. District Magistrate, Basti, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in 1972 ll ALJ 573 : (AIR 1972 All 510) Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affected the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the license of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders are also suffering from the same infirmity as was pointed out by Division Bench in the above-mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
(3.) THERE is yet another reason that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case and at present there is neither any case pending, nor any conviction has been attributed to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to have the fire-arm license. The copy of judgments and orders dated 24-1-2001 and 06-02-2001 passed by Vlth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in case crime No. 44 of 1996 (S.T. No. 159 of 1996), under Section 302, I.P.C. and case crime No. 46 of 1996 (S.T. No. 160 of 1996), under Section 25, Arms Act have been annexed as Annexures SA-1 and SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.;