A.B.Srivastava - (1.) AS usual, on behalf of state respondents, no counter- affidavit has been filed in this case, despite several opportunities granted since March 1995, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally as the relevant facts are available on record.
(2.) THE petitioner was served with a show cause notice contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 stating that from the report of Police station Nagal, District Saharanpur, it was evident that the petitioner was licensee of a 315 bore rifle. THEy were registered at the police station in two criminal cases, case crime No. 47/89 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 452, 504, 506, 302, I.P.C. and case Crime No. 62 of 1991 under Section 364 I.P.C., charge-sheet in which were submitted and cases pending in the Court, the petitioner is a person of criminal bent of mind who uses the weapon for threatening witnesses and committing crimes. He was called upon to show cause as to why his arms licence be not cancelled and the weapon surrendered. By his order dated 27.8.1992, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner, affirmed the notice cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner. THE petitioner's appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut division by his order dated 20.12.1994 contained in Annexure 10. Aggrieved this writ petition. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Shri Daya Shankar Mishra is that both the impugned orders, having been passed on non-existent grounds, are unsustainable. The first submission in this regard is that in both the criminal cases referred in the show cause notice, the petitioner was acquitted, as such the same could not be basis of cancellation. The fact of acquittal is not disputed, rather is established from Annexure 5, a copy of the order dated 24.11.1992 of the A.D.M. Saharanpur showing that simultaneously with the petitioner, similar notice under Section 17 was issued to his co-accused Soran Singh involved in both the cases. The accused in both cases having been acquitted, that notice was discharged by the Additional District Magistrate. The case in respect of the petitioner being at par with that of Soran Singh, in this material aspect, there would be no justification in law to pass a different order. Even if at the time of passing order by the District Magistrate, one of the cases had not been decided, when the appellate court's order was passed by the Commissioner, admittedly the other case had also ended in acquittal. In the appellate order, there has been a reference to two other cases against petitioner, Firstly these were not the basis of the notice and secondly as per record, this also ended in acquittal.
(3.) ON behalf of the State, learned Standing Counsel has strenuously tried to support the order on the basis of the observations by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner that the petitioner was a man of criminal bent of mind and the witnesses in criminal cases turned hostile due to his strong arm tactics. This, however, to say the least, is not supported by any evidence. The effects of judicial judgments, could not be avoided by making such sweeping observations. There neither was issued any notice to the petitioner about any other criminal activities, nor on record there appears to have been led any proof of the same. The cancellation of an arm licence under Section 17, could be ordered only if any one or more of the grounds or situations enumerated in the said Section exist, and the licensing authority records in writing the reasons therefor. Recording reasons envisage existence of legally admissible material to prove the facts sought to constitute the ground for cancellation. It cannot be done on mere surmises or impressions. The reason being, to maintain a balance between the interest of the society at large, and the rights of an individual.;