BIBHUTI NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.

(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18-8-1990 passed by the licensing authority under the Arms Act suspending the licences of the petitioner of a N.P. Bore rifle and of a 12 bore S.B.B.L. gun and the order dated 5-10-1990 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for interim relief and entertaining/admitting the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order passed by the licensing authority does not come within the purview of anyone of the clauses of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act. It was urged that in the present case, no allegation of abuse or misuse of the said guns has been made in the order of suspension nor any first information report is alleged to have been filed. According to him, even filing of a first information report is not sufficient to take any action for suspension or cancellation of arm license. Further, in this case period for which suspension shall remain operative, has not been specified, therefore, suspension order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He referred to the decisions of this Court in Ram Murari Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur, reported in 1999(3) RCR(Criminal) 654 (All.) : (1998) 3 All WC 2191 : (1999 All LJ 1518), Raghubir Sahai v. District Magistrate, Jhansi, reported in 1986 All Cri C 480; and Jugul Kishore v. District Magistrate, Jalaun is reported in 1978 (8) ACC 389 (sic) in support of his submissions.