Remanded

Birendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2018WRIC/68047/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an appellate authority order cancelling a petitioner's firearms license. The authority relied on a police report despite the petitioner's criminal acquittal. The court directed remittal to the appellate authority to consider all evidence, including the petitioner's acquittal record.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.10.2015 set aside and matter remitted to amended appellate authority to pass a fresh order after considering the entire material evidence including the petitioner's acquittal.

Birendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 68047 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra Pratap Rajan

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶8

Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the licensing authority by which that authority had cancelled the three fire arms licences that had been issued to the petitioner. That order came to be upheld in appeal by the appellate authority vide his order dated 29.10.2015.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been issued fire arms licences under the category of victim of a crime, inasmuch as his father had been brutally murdered. Arising from that event, the petitioner had applied for and had been granted fire arms licences. It is also stated that the petitioner is a civil contractor and that he requires the fire arm for his personal use and safety. As to the criminal case that is the basis for cancellation of his arms licences, it has been submitted that the petitioner had falsely been implicated in that case. Subsequently, he was acquitted by order dated 03.07.2015, i.e. before the order dated 07.07.2015 cancelling the arms licences of the petitioner.

¶10

The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 07.07.2015 which has also been rejected by order dated 29.10.2015, by making discussion to the order passed by the licensing authority dated 07.07.2015, however, no discussion has been made as to the findings recorded by the criminal court.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the licensing authority and the appellate authority have erred in relying on the facts as alleged in the police report without examining the contents of the order passed by the trial court and its impact.

¶12

It is further submitted that once the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal trial, the same allegations that had been made against the petitioner for cancellation of his licences lost their effect.

¶13

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was involved in a heinous offence of attempt to murder and that merely because he has been acquitted by giving a benefit of doubt since the key prosecution witness had turned hostile, does not entitle the petitioner to restoration of his fire arms licences.

¶14

Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that though, in the first place, specific allegations were made against the petitioner of having misused his fire arm along with his accomplishes, however, in the criminal trial such allegation could not be proved.

¶15

In view of the fact that the criminal trial resulted in acquittal of the petitioner on giving benefit of doubt as key prosecution witness had turned hostile, it could not be read to itself lead to an inference that the petitioner was not at all involved in the incident. At the same time, it also cannot be accepted that the licensing authority could have proceeded solely on the basis of the police report submitted before him without examining the findings of the criminal court and the other relevant facts and material before him, as relied by the petitioner.

¶16

Though, fate of a criminal trial depends on rule of strict proof and benefit of doubt may always go in favour of the accused, however, in civil proceedings for cancellation of fire arm licence, a balance of evidence may be sufficient to justify the cancellation of the licence. At the same time, the licensing authority and the appellate authority should have applied their mind to the entire evidence that was available on record and that they did not have a choice to look at only one set of evidence and ignore the other. Since the appellate authority has only considered the material that was placed by the police and it appears to have ignored the material evidence relied upon by the petitioner, the order passed by the appellate authority may not be sustained.

¶17

Accordingly, the order dated 29.10.2015 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to pass fresh order after considering the entire material and evidence existing on record, including the material that has been relied upon by the petitioner.

¶18

While doing so, the appellate authority may apply its independent mind both to the material that may be relied upon by the petitioner as also that may be advanced by the licensing authority, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.12.2018 AHA

Birendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Pratap 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S/S Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Kshetriya Shree Gandhi Ashram Mau and Another Vs Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and Another

Dhirendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ram Sahai Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Dayal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram Vs Debts Recovery Appellate and 3 Others