Remanded

Rajesh Kumar v. Divisional Commissioner Moradabad and Another

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2018WRIC/18954/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court set aside orders cancelling the petitioner's fire arms licence after its grantee was acquitted in a criminal trial. The Court held that acquittal does not mandate automatic restoration. The matter was remanded to the licensing authority to reconsider the case in light of the criminal judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to the licensing authority to pass a fresh order within four months.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Divisional Commissioner Moradabad… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18954 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- Divisional Commissioner, Moradabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Vats,Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

1.Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, by which that authority has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Sambhal, cancelling the petitioner's fire arms licence.

¶9

Briefly, the fire arms licence of the petitioner was cancelled on the allegation that the petitioner, being armed, had forcibly entered into possession over the property mortgaged by him to the Prathama Bank after breaking-up the locks/seal. It has also been found by the District Magistrate in his order that the above conduct of the petitioner had created commotion and led to breach of peace. On such allegation of misuse, the petitioner's fire arms licence was cancelled.

¶10

On similar reason, the Appellate Authority has upheld the order of cancellation of fire arms licence granted to the petitioner.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid allegation had led to the institution of a criminal case against the petitioner, being Criminal Case No. 377 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 447, 448, 406, 504 and 506 IPC. By his judgement and order dated 23.7.2016, the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sambhal has acquitted the petitioner of all charges and further, it has been submitted that the petitioner had discharged the dues of the Prathama Bank. In such circumstances, it has also been submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner were wholly false and unsubstantiated. These have been wholly disproved in the criminal trial.Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the fire arms licence of the petitioner is liable to be restored.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and

¶13

submitted that, in the first place, cancellation of licence had not arisen solely on account of allegation of involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case but that the District Magistrate took note of the conduct offered by the petitioner which resulted in breach of public peace, besides amounting to misuse of the fire arms licence granted to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is not a clean acquittal but an acquittal that has arisen upon a benefit of doubt, in face of witness having turned hostile.

¶14

Having considered the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that, though, the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial, still, that may not itself lead to an automatic restoration of the licence, in his favour. At the same time, in view of the decision of the criminal court, it would be appropriate that the licencing authority may reconsider the case of the petitioner in the entirety of the facts and circumstances and pass appropriate orders in light of all facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 03.03.2017 and 14.08.2015 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the licensing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

Petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 5.12.2018 AHA

Rajesh Kumar v. Divisional Commissioner Moradabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Divisional Commissioner Moradabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alakh Kishore Vs District Magistrate and 3 Others

Mohammad Jafar Ali Khan (Since Deceased) and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 05 Others

Mohd. Mukim Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Union of India and Anr. Vs the Ministry of Labour and Emp. and 2 Others

Nihal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Sirohi Vs State of U P and 2 Others