Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of the show cause notice/order dated 21.9.2008 issued by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act by which while suspending the Firm Arm licence with immediate effect, he also directed for deposit of the arm licensed as in his opinion it was necessary for the security of public peace and safety. The petitioner is having Rifle of 315 Bore No. 5412 with licence No. 2330 dated 24.10.1997, Ludhiyana. The background of the case is that three F.I.Rs. had been lodged against the petitioner by the complainant. The first F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against unknown persons on 9.7.2002 which was registered as Case Crime No. 141 of 2002 under Section 302, I.P.C. at Police Station, Gambhir, district Azamgarh, the second F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against unknown persons on 18.11.2007 as Case Crime No. Nil of 2007 under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. Police Station, Bardah, district Azamgarh and the third F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner alongwith four persons on 26.8.2008 as Case Crime No. 559 of 2008 under Section 147/323/506, I.P.C. at Police Station, Mehnagar, District Azamgarh. A police report was submitted by Station House Officer, Police Station, Mehnagar mentioning the criminal history of the petitioner and requesting that gun licence of the petitioner be cancelled in the public peace and security.
(3.) ON the basis of the above police report and recommendation the Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh issued a show cause notice dated 21.9.2008 suspending firearm licence of the petitioner and directed him to deposit the firearm in police malkhana and the petitioner was also asked to reply the show cause notice within fifteen days as to why his gun licence be not cancelled. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the District Magistrate is against the settled proposition of law for the reason the District Magistrate has no authority to get the firearm deposited unless licence has been cancelled. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by His Lordship Hon'ble K. N. Sinha, J., in this regard in the case of Satish Chandra v. State of U. P. and others, 2003 (1) JIC 33 (All) : 2003 (1) ACR 569, wherein it has been held that the District Magistrate has been the authority to get the arms deposited. The licence cannot be suspended as the District Magistrate has no authority to get the fire arms deposited unless the licence has been cancelled. The licence cannot be suspended unless a reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner-licence holder to show cause.;