- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Shri R. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing judgment and order dated 28-6-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Hamirpur canceling the fire arm licence of the petitioner and order dated 4-7-2003 passed by Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. A notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence be not cancelled. Notice stated that petitioner is a named accused in case crime No. 18/99 under Sections 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Notice also stated that petitioner and his family members are persons of criminal nature and petitioner has obtained licence by concealing facts. Petitioner filed his objection to the said notice denying the allegations. Petitioner in his reply stated that petitioner's two real brothers have been murdered regarding which a case under Section 302 is pending against the accused. In reply it was further stated that the petitioner is unable to protect his life and property and to prosecute the cases pertaining to murder of his brothers. The reply further stated that considering the above facts the arm licence was granted to the petitioner and the enemies of the petitioner have falsely implicated the petitioner in case crime No. 18/99 under Section 307, IPC and the licenced arm of the petitioner's maternal uncle has been shown with the petitioner, whereas said maternal uncle Shri Panna Lal had come to Village to participate in a marriage. The Court has granted bail to the petitioner and returned the arm licence of Panna Lal to him. The District Magistrate by order dated 28-6-2002 cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner. The District Magistrate in the order stated that the cancellation proceedings have been initiated on the basis of criminal case No. 18/99 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The District Magistrate observed that no evidence has been given by the petitioner that he been acquitted in the case and the said case is still pending. The District Magistrate further observed that by concealing all these facts, the licence was obtained on 19-5- 1999. Against the order of the District Magistrate canceling the licence, petitioner filed an appeal which appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner on 4-7-2003. The Commissioner also observed that the case No. 18 of 99 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act is pending against the petitioner and the arm of another person was recovered from the petitioner. The Commissioner refused to interfere in the order. Both the above orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case under Section 307, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act by the judgment dated 2-6-2004 of Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur. Copy of the judgment of Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur has been filed as S. A.-I to the supplementary affidavit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that basis of the cancellation of the licence was criminal, case No. 18/99 and the petitioner having been acquitted in the said case, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. The Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in the 2002 A. Cr. R. 982, Habib v. State of U. P.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner further contended that no facts were concealed by the petitioner in his application for arm licence. Petitioner's Counsel contended that application for arm licence was given on 7-10-1998 and no facts were concealed there in. THE First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 21-3-1999 on which criminal case No. 18/99 was registered. The learned standing Counsel replying the submission of the petitioner contended that the order impugned are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in this writ petition and on the basis of acquitted of the petitioner in the criminal case, it is open for the petitioner to make an application before the Licensing Authority for renewal of licence.;