Remanded

Smt. Urmila Yadav v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2018WRIC/37658/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order dismissing an appeal under the Arms Act due to lack of prosecution. It directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after the petitioner's son was acquitted in related criminal cases, granting liberty to file acquittal orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.8.2018 setting aside the appeal was set aside. The petitioner is directed to file acquittal orders within two weeks, and the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously w

Smt. Urmila Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37658 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Urmila Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- I. N. Singh,Ajay Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 has been dismissed vide order dated 18.8.2018 on the ground that repeated restoration applications were filed by the petitioner which were not duly pursued.

¶6

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fire arm licence of the petitioner had been cancelled on account of the criminal cases lodged against her son pursuant to which report was submitted by the Station House Officer concerned regarding misuse of the licencee fire arm.

¶7

In both the criminal cases being Case Crime Nos. 455/2010 and 458/2010, the petitioner's son has been acquitted. Submission is that with the acquittal of the petitioner' son, the grounds of cancellation of fire arms licence, itself obliterate.

¶8

Submission is that as the appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.4.2014, the petitioner could not bring the acquittal orders on record.

¶9

The submission is that the appeal be decided on merits after considering the fate of the acquittal of the petitioner's son in the criminal cases.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has tried to defend the order impugned dated 18.8.2018 on the ground that it was repeated default on the part of the petitioner.

¶11

Be that as it may, having perused the record and noticing the fact that the petitioner's son has been acquitted which were basis of the order of cancellation of fire arm licence passed by the licensing authority, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires adjudication at the ends of the appellate authority.

¶12

For the aforesaid,setting aside the order dated 18.8.2018 restoring the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, the present petition is being disposed of with the

¶13

direction to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad to consider the appeal on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to place the orders of acquittal by moving an application before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks along with certified copy of this order. The appellate authority shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

¶14

It goes without saying that an independent decision in accordance with law shall be taken in appeal without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.11.2018 Pratima

Smt. Urmila Yadav v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Urmila Yadav v. State of U.P. and 02 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. and Another Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Another

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

Ravindra Kaur Vs State of U P and 03 Others

Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Div. Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Mahtab Alam Vs State Information Commissioner and 2 Others

Brij Raj Singh Vs State of U P and 03 Others