Allowed

Zafar Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020WRIC/53938/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed orders cancelling a petitioner's fire-arm licence and dismissed the respondent's appeal. The court held that mere pendency of a criminal case is insufficient grounds for revocation under the Arms Act without evidence proving the act caused fear or terror.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of 18.11.2013 and 14.5.2012 were quashed and the petitioner was directed to have the licence released forthwith.

Zafar Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53938 of 2014

¶3

Petitioner :- Zafar Mohammad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Mustafa Khan,Afshan Shafaut

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri S.A. Azmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned Standing counsel.

¶7

By means of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 18.11.2013 passed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad and the order dated 14.5.2012 passed by District Magistrate Kaushambi whereby the fire-arm licence of the petitioner was cancelled and the appeal preferred against it was dismissed.

¶8

Petitioner is holding Licence No. 8182 of D.B.B.L. Gun No. 155627 which he claims to have deposited with the Police Station- Khuldabad, District-Allahabad. Subsequently, some incident took place, in which the petitioner was involved in Case Crime No. 80-A of 2010 under Section 147, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Pursuant to the report of the SHO, the Superintendent of Police submitted a report before the District Magistrate to the effect that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and he is involved in a case of attempt to murder and therefore, his fire-arm licence be cancelled. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which was replied by him on 5.2.2012. The Licensing authority cancelled the arm-licence vide order dated 14.5.2012 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2013. Both these orders are impugned in the present petition.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on mere involvement in a criminal case, the fire arm-licence of the petitioner could not have been cancelled and further there was no material on record that the overt act resulted in fear and terror amongst the persons.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel refutes the above submission and submits that on available materials, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

The record reflects that Case Crime No. 80-A of 2010 under Section 147, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, has been registered against the petitioner. The first information report in the said case is a cross case. Apart from a bald averments that on account of the overt act, allegedly committed by the petitioner, an atmosphere of fear and terror prevailed in the area amongst the persons. There is nothing on record to indicate the basis of the alleged apprehensions. The counter affidavit also does not disclose the existence of any material, which could have formed the basis of apprehension of fear and terror in the community of the area, except a bald recital in the police report.

¶12

This Court in Habib Vs. State of U.P., 2002 (44) ACC and numerous other decisions has already held that a licence could not be cancelled on account of mere pendency of a criminal case. Paragraph-3 of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶13

"The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire-arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed."

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the aforesaid decision merely on the basis of pendency of a criminal case, the arm-licence of the petitioner could not have been cancelled.

¶15

Moreover, as stated above, the Court does not find any material, except a bald recital in the report, which could authenticate the apprehension of the Licensing authority that on account of overt act committed by the petitioner, fear and terror prevailed in the area. Thus the impugned orders become vulnerable in law and are liable to be quashed.

¶16

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed . The impugned orders dated 18.11.2013 and 14.5.2012 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release forthwith the Licence No. 8182 of D.B.B.L. Gun No. 155627 in favour of the petitioner, provided there is no other legal impediment.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.1.2020 T. Sinha

Zafar Mohammad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zafar Mohammad 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

Uma Shankar Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

C/M Bhartiya Vidyalay Sabha Sultanpur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Smt Neetu Devi Bind Mahavidyalya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Sadar Patel Primary School and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others