VISHNU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a license of a firearm D.B.B.L. gun, approaches this Court by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Meerut dated 13.08.1993, whereby the licensing authority revoked the aforesaid licence issued to the petitioner. A perusal of the notice as well as the impugned order revoking the firearm licence of the petitioner demonstrate that the licence of firearm of the petitioner has been revoked on the ground that he was involved in two criminal cases, which are case crime no. 39 of 1991 and 1 of 1992, under different sections of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the revocation of the firearm licence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide its order dated 14.07.1998 dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the order of revocation passed by the licensing authority. It is these two orders, which have been challenged by the petitioner by means of present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, petitioner has filed the judgment of the Session trial arising out of case crime no. 39 of 1991, in which he has been acquitted by the Session Judge concerned and also the order of the XIIth A.C.J.M., Meerut in case crime no. 1 of 1992, in which the petitioner was also acquitted, therefore on the date when the appeal was heard the ground on which the firearm licence was revoked was no more in existence and the appellate authority has erred in law in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The appellate authority in its order impugned in the present writ petition has noticed the fact that the petitioner has no doubt been acquitted in both these criminal cases on the basis whereof the petitioner's firearm licence was revoked, but the appellate authority has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground which is neither relevant for the revocation of the licence, nor the petitioner was served with a notice and was asked to explain as to why his aforesaid firearm licence should not be revoked. In this view of the matter, the appellate authority has carved out a new case in its order, which has never been taken by the licensing authority for revocation of the firearm licence of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel tries to justify the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the licensing authority but in view of the recent decision delivered by me in civil misc. writ petition no. 28240 of 1998- Raghuvir Singh Vs. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others, (decided on 13.09.2002), wherein I have relied upon two Division Bench decisions reported in 1978 A.W.C. page 122- Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti and others; and 1972 A.L.J., page 573- Masi Uddin Vs. Commissioner. Allahabad and also my judgement reported in 2002 (1) Judicial Interpretation on Crimes, page 501 Iftikhar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court has held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest and also is not sufficient for revocation of the firearm licence of the licensee, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the aforesaid two criminal cases. In this view of the matter, without entering into any further argument, this petition deserves to be succeeded and the orders of the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority deserve to be quashed.