Allowed

Bhoom Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2018WRIC/59691/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged cancellation of firearm license based on criminal antecedents. Single Judge held mere involvement in cases without public peace threat violates Section 17(3) Arms Act. Allowed petition, quashed order, and remitted matter for fresh proceedings in compliance with law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order of cancellation quashed; matter remitted to Commissioner for fresh order within two months.

Bhoom Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59691 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhoom Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker,Rama Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur, by which that authority has upheld the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar whereby, the petitioner's fire arm license had been cancelled.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground for cancellation of the fire arm license was of his alleged involvement in three criminal cases being Case Crime No. 654 of 2014, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Jansath; Case Crime No. 655 of 2014, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Jansath and Case Crime No. 656 of 2014, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police StationJansath.

¶8

It is then submitted that no allegation was made against the petitioner of any threat to public peace or public safety having been caused by the petitioner by misuse of the fire arm possessed by him.

¶9

Then, it is submitted that the allegations even if accepted, would fall outside the scope of proceedings under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶10

Reliance has also been placed on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, DistrictFaizabad & Another reported in 2018 (102) AllCriC 851 wherein following the Division Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs. District Magistrate reported in 1978 AWC 122 and Masi Uddin Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad reported in 1972 AllLJ 573 , this Court had set aside similar order by which, the fire arm license had been cancelled.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits

¶12

that the petitioner is a retired Lekhpal who is alleged to have been involved in fabricating revenue record for his own benefit.

¶13

Further, findings have been referred to as have been recorded in the impugned orders suggesting that the applicant has criminal antecedents. Therefore, it has been submitted that the cancellation of the petitioner's fire arm license was wholly illegal.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is seen, presently, the fire arm license of the petitioner has been cancelled not on account of any finding recorded by any authority as to threat to public peace or public safety caused by the petitioner, but solely on account of his involvement in three criminal cases.

¶15

Bare perusal of the description of the cases brings out the fact that the involvement of the petitioner as alleged in three criminal cases are regarding property disputes not involving misuse of any fire arm.

¶16

As to the involvement in such cases, the law is clear that mere involvement of a licensee in a criminal case cannot lead to automatic cancellation of the fire arm license. The cancellation of the fire arm license may arise solely upon satisfaction being reached as to the conditions of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. At present, no such satisfaction appears to have recorded by either of the two authorities i.e. the District Magistrate or the Commissioner.

¶17

Accordingly, the present writ petition must succeed and is allowed . The matter is remitted to the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.12.2018 Abhilash

Bhoom Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoom Singh 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dakshinanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another Vs Shri.Devendra Kumar and 2 Others

Ran Vijay Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri 1008 Parshavnath Digambar Jain Mandir Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Pal Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others