The Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition said that it is undoubtedly to say that merely pendency of the criminal case or with the apprehension that the petitioner may be involved in future in any other criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of the arms license under the Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear cut finding is recorded by the Competent Authorities that the possession of the fire arms caused threatening of the public peace and is danger for the safety of human being.
A Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ram Vilas.
The petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the respondent no 2 in case as well as the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the respondent no 3.
The crux of the matter is that the petitioner, who had firearms license was served with show cause notice dated 12.07.2012 on the ground that there was a first information report registered against the petitioner bearing Case under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Nidhauli Kala, District-Etah.
There was another first information report registered against the petitioner in Case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506,324 IPC, Police Station-Nidhauli Kala, District-Etah, wherein after investigation, final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer.
On 02.05.2017, the petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 12.07.2012 that he had been falsely implicated in the said case by the police party and, therefore, proceedings initiated for cancellation of firearms license should be dropped.
After considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent no 3 directed the respondent no 5 to submit a fresh report. The report has been submitted on 01.08.2017 by respondent no 5, on the basis of which, without considering the reply of the petitioner, firearms license of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 03.08.2018 on the ground that criminal case is pending against him. Appeal against the aforesaid order has also been rejected by the respondent no 2 vide order dated 02.08.2019. Hence the petition has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that except the criminal case, there is no other case registered against the petitioner nor has he ever been found to be guilty in a criminal case at that point of time.
He further submitted that without considering the fact that during the course of trial, the son of the deceased has given a statement before the trial court that his father has not been shot by the petitioner and the ballistic report also does not prove that the firearms were used by the petitioner, the firearms license has been cancelled.
He further submitted that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case, on the basis of which, firearms license has been cancelled.
Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that merely because a criminal case is pending, the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act would not be attracted and in the case, as the petitioner has already been acquitted in criminal case lodged against him, therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside.
Per contra, the argument of the Standing Counsel is that once the petitioner has been found to be implicated in a criminal case, it was sufficient enough for the District Magistrate to record his satisfaction. However, Standing Counsel could not dispute the factual position that the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and their arguments advanced across the bar and having perused the record, I find that the appellate authority had failed to consider the order and judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner in the said criminal case and even otherwise I find that except the criminal case in question in which petitioner stood acquitted, there is no such case registered against him and, therefore, no inference can be drawn that the petitioner was having criminal antecedents.
From perusal of Section 17(3) and Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959, it is crystal clear that not a single ground of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is applicable in the case of the petitioner, undisputedly petitioner was involved only in one criminal case and the respondents could not bring on record any material to show that the petitioner was involved in any other criminal case except the present one. It is also relevant to mention here that in the sole criminal case, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the concerned court below. As per provision of Section 17(7) of the Arms Act, 19592 which provides that if the conviction is set aside in appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void.
In the facts of the case, the Court comes to the conclusion that none of the grounds mentioned in section 17(3) of “The Act, 1959”, is applicable in the petitioner case. The petitioner was involved in only one criminal case and was finally acquitted by order dated 23.07.2021, further as provided under section 17(7) of “The Act, 1959”, if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall became void, therefore in that case too, the petitioner is entitled for restoration of his firearm license by the Authority concerned, in view of the above, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The Court said that it is undoubtedly to say that merely pendency of the criminal case or with the apprehension that the petitioner may be involved in future in any other criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of the arms license under the Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear cut finding is recorded by the Competent Authorities that the possession of the fire arms caused threatening of the public peace and is danger for the safety of human being. The Competent Authorities fail to record any such finding in the impugned orders.
“This Court finds that for cancellation of a firearm license, there had to be a definite finding that the possession of firearms with the licensee was endangering public peace and public safety. The aforesaid has been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Ram Prasad vs Commissioner and others.
In view of the well-settled legal proposition and the relevant case laws referred above and the provisions contained in the said Act, the Court finds that in the case, the petitioner’s licence was cancelled by the concerned District Magistrate on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. The petitioner was later on acquitted of the criminal case by order dated 23.07.2021. A perusal of the order of acquittal does not show the use of firearms. After acquittal, the very basis of the order of cancellation vanished. The finding of the concerned District Magistrate as affirmed by the Commissioner, that it was not in the interest of public peace and the public security that the licence remained with the petitioner/ licensee, is not based on any evidence/ material, except the police reports which in their turn, were in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. On mere apprehension expressed in the impugned orders that the petitioner would misuse the firearm and would extend threat to the persons of the weaker section of the society, the arm licence could not be cancelled.
Thus in view of above exposition of law and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the licensing authority cancelling the firearms license of the petitioner dated 02.08.2019 deserves to be quashed”, the Court observed while allowing the petition
“Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the respondent no 2 in case as well as the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the respondent no 3 are hereby quashed.
However, quashing of the impugned orders would not result in revival of the petitioner’s firearm license automatically. The petitioner may move an application before the District Magistrate, Etah along with relevant documents as well as acquittal order and certified copy of this order within two weeks. If any such application is filed before the District Magistrate, Etah/licensing authority, the same shall be processed and decided expeditiously strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of production of such application”, the Court ordered.