Dismissed

Saroj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023A227/4146/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Matters under Article 227 petition to quash orders refusing release of a firearm seized under the Arms Act. The petitioner, spouse of a deceased licensee, was a retainer on the license, not the licensee. The petition challenging the refusal to release the weapon was dismissed as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the orders declined to be entertained and dismissed.

Saroj Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193863

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4146 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Saroj Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶8

This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by A.C.J.M Court No.2 Etawah declining release of Fire Arm in Case No.595 of 2022 (State Vs. Ajit Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.170 of 2018, Under Sections 3/25 and 30 of Arms Act, Police Station- Ikdil, District- Etawah as well as order dated 17.02.2023.

¶9

The relevant facts are as below.

¶10

The petitioner Saroj Yadav filed an application for release of Fire Arm, a case property seized in Case Crime No.170 of 2018 under Sections 3/24 and 30 of Arms Act. The application was refused. The contention of the applicantpetitioner was that she is a license holder of factory made rifle No.46/BML16 dated 12.11.2015 and she produced a copy of license. The learned Magistrate concerned came to the conclusion that license holder was her husband Satish Chandra Yadav and that her name was mentioned merely as retainer in the license. It was further found that the license holder died, meanwhile, but the retainer did not surrender the fire arm.

¶11

The revisional court, agreed with the conclusion reached by the Magistrate, the revisional court gave an opinion that on the death of her husband on 11.09.2018 it was her responsibility to inform the authorities but the same was not done. The revisional court further found that her name was entered in the license merely as a retainer and not as a licensee. Dismissing the revision, revisional court has observed that a retainer cannot be treated as licensee and further that in cases of death of licensee, the heir/ heirs can apply for transfer of licencee in her/their name and only then fire arm can be released.

¶12

I went through the impugned orders and also a copy of the license. The name of the applicant-petitioner is mentioned as a retainer. There is nothing to show that she holds a valid license in her name. The petitioner has utterly filed to point out any ground, which could prompt this Court to interfere in the matter.

¶13

In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the

¶14

impugned order in exercise of power under section 227 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is, hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 A Gautam

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saroj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Yadav v. State of U.P.

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

Prince Rajput Vs State of U.P.

Smt Kunchan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anita and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Priyank Dixit and 4 Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Parvej Ilahi @ Kaushar Afridi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others