Remanded

Sudhir Vasant Karnataki v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2013WP/481/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, via a criminal writ petition, set aside the order revoking the petitioner's firearm licence. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority to decide afresh, considering the petitioner's subsequent acquittal in a criminal case related to the licence revocation.

What did the court decide?

The order of revocation set aside; matter remanded to appellate authority to decide afresh after granting petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Sudhir Vasant Karnataki Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/3 (20)WP-481-12

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.481 of 2012

¶6

Sudhir Vasant Karnataki ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors ... Respondents

¶7

Ms.Veera Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mrs.G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶10

DATED : JULY 15, 2013

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶13

2 By consent, heard finally.

¶14

3 The petitioner was granted a licence to hold an arm under the provisions of the Arms Act 1959 on 14 August 2001. A case alleging commission of offences punishable under section 143 IPC, 147 IPC, 452 IPC, 384 IPC, 395 IPC, 336 IPC, 337 IPC, 427 IPC, 504 IPC and 506 IPC, was registered against him sometime in the year 2009 vide C.R.No.150 of 2009. In view of this registration of case against the petitioner, the Commissioner of Police, Pune –

¶15

2/3 (20)WP-481-12

¶16

the Licensing Authority – issued a notice to him, to show cause, as to why the said licence should not be revoked as per clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 17 of the Arms Act. The petitioner replied to the notice, but the Commissioner of Police however, held that the reply was not satisfactory and revoked the licence by an order dated 18 May 2010. The petitioner filed an appeal as contemplated under section 18 of the Arms Act, but his appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate authority by an order dated 28 September 2011. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order revoking his licence and the appellate order upholding the revocation, has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

¶17

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the Sessions case arising out of the said C.R.No.150/09 registered at Khadak Police Station, the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court. She submitted that the judgment in the said Sessions case acquitting the petitioner was passed on 21 October 2011.

¶18

5 The learned counsel submitted that when appellate authority decided the petitioner's appeal the Sessions case against the petitioner, was pending.

¶19

6 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the petitioner's acquittal from the said sessions case, the petitioner would be entitled to raise additional contentions and/or support the contentions earlier raised before the appellate authority. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶20

3/3 (20)WP-481-12

¶21

petitioner would be ready to again approach the appellate authority, and advance additional contentions in view of the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be appropriate, in view of this, if the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority. Though the order of acquittal, by itself would not result in holding that the action of revocation was not justified or legal, still, in the circumstances of the case, this aspect would be relevant. Since the petitioner is seeking one more opportunity to put forth his case before the appellate authority, it seems proper in the circumstances, to grant such opportunity to him.

¶22

7 The order passed by the Principal Secretary, Special Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, on 20 September 2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority, who shall decide the appeal afresh, after giving to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard once again.

¶23

8 It is made clear, no opinion, on merits of the matter, or on any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, has been expressed by this Court.

¶24

9 Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

10 Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶26

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )

Sudhir Vasant Karnataki v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Vasant Karnataki v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Lalit Babubhai Sanghavi Vs Prithviraj Jaychand Oswal and Anr.

Rahul @ Akshay Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi Shrichand Punjabi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Bhairu Khot Vs Dastgir Badshaha Khalifa and Anr.

Dr Ranvir Kumar Bindeswari Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakashchand Rathi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.