Disposed

Poshaki Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2018WRIC/27531/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify firearm license cancellation, but acquittal in the underlying case invalidates the ground for cancellation. The petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate for revocation with specific timelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given three weeks to move application District Magistrate for revocation with certified copy of order.

Poshaki Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27531 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Poshaki Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J

¶5

Heard Shri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The present petition is filed against the dismissal of appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, challenging the order dated 24.7.2015, on the ground of delay.

¶7

It appears that in view of the registration of First Information Report namely Case Crime No.607/14 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302 I.P.C. and lodging of the petitioner in jail, his fire-arm license was cancelled vide order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is demonstrated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 6.11.2017 passed by the competent court of law. It appears that after acquittal, the petitioner approached this Court seeking restoration of license. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. On filing of appeal, the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly had rejected the same on the ground of delay.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sole ground for cancellation of license of the petitioner was the pendency of the criminal case whereas the petitioner has been acquitted, the ground for cancellation, therefore, itself obliterated. The Appellate Authority has erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds and in not considering this aspect of the matter.

¶9

Be that as it may, in view of the judgments of this Court in 1978 AWC, 122 (Sheo Prasad Mishra vs. District Magistrate) and Masi Uddin vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573, it is settled principle that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of fire-arm license. However, in case there is any apprehension of the Licensing Authority that the license holder was implicated in a criminal case and there was some situation of breach of law and order, it can cancel the license. However, with the acquittal of the license holder in the criminal case, which was the basis of cancellation order, the ground for cancellation itself obliterate. In the said circumstances, it becomes incumbent upon the Licensing Authority to examine the claim of the license holder for revocation of the cancellation order.

¶10

The appeal filed by the petitioner, therefore, could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. However, in view of the fact that the grievances of the petitioner can be met by the Licensing

¶11

Authority namely the District Magistrate, Bareilly, the present petition is being disposed of with the directions as follows:-

¶12

(1) The petitioner shall move a fresh application before the District Magistrate, Bareilly within a period of three weeks along with certified copy of this order seeking revocation of the order dated 24.7.2015 on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case.

¶13

(2) In case such an application is moved, the District Magistrate, Bareilly would be under obligation to examine the order of acquittal and the circumstances in which the cancellation order dated 24.7.2015 had been passed.

¶14

(3) A fresh decision, in accordance with law, shall be taken by the District Magistrate, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of submission of the said application.

¶15

Before taking such decision, it would be appropriate that the District Magistrate shall seek a fresh report with regard to credentials of the petitioner.

¶16

The release of gun to the petitioner would be subject matter of enquiry and fresh orders to be passed by the licensing authority.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.8.2018 Jyotsana

Poshaki Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poshaki Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Razzak @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Porwal Vs the Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, S.B.I. Jalaun and 4 Others

M/S Imi Norgren Herion (Pvt) Ltd. Vs Labour Court U.P. , Noida and 3 Others

Munish Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Ram Saran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madan Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others