BHAGAUTI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fire-arm licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate. The ground for cancellation of licence was that the petitioner had in league with the other persons killed one Ram Manohar as a result of which FIR No. 75/98 under Sections 147/148/149/ 302/120B I.P.C. has been lodged against him. It is alleged that licenced gun was used in the commission of an offence. Petitioner was actually involved in the commission of the such offence. In view of the involvement of petitioner in crime, it was found necessary to cancel his licence as the acts committed were in the natura of disturbing peace and tranquility of the area. The order further reveals that if the gun is allowed to remain with the petitioner it will endanger public peace and security in the area. The licence was cancelled vide order dated 1.8.1997 by the prescribed authority. Against the cancellation of the licence the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. In these circumstances the present petition has been filed. The case of the petitioner is that the case which was registered against him stands disposed of by the trial Court resulting in the acquittal of the petitioner alongwith other accused persons. Since petitioner stands acquitted in the case very basis of the order of the cancellation are washed of and therefore the impugned order is required to be set aside.

(2.) The power to cancel or revoke the licence is contained in section 17 of the Arms Act. One of the ground for cancellation of licence is that if the licensing authority deems it necessary for security of the public peace or public safety then the licence can be cancelled or revoked. Powers have been given to the District Magistrate to cancel the licence if it is satisfied that the continuance of the licence is likely to disturb the public peace or public safety.

(3.) This satisfaction has to be recorded by the District Magistrate on the basis of the relevant material. The relevant material may be obtained by the District Magistrate through various agencies viz. police and other sources. Area for determination would be that if the licenced gun is allowed to remain in the hand of the applicant it is likely to disturb the peace in the area. By way of illustration if no offence is committed by the applicant, mere display of the fire-arm threatening the public and causing fear may be a ground for cancellation of licence. Mere registration of the case against a person may not be necessarily a ground for cancellation provided it is shown that the applicant has a long criminal record as a result of which the privilege given him to use the gun is misused. These are some of the areas where the District Magistrate is required to record his satisfaction before passing the order under section 17 of the Arms Act. In the present case the District Magistrate has cancelled the licence only on the ground that a criminal case is registered against the petitioner. I do not find that this was correct approach adopted by the District Magistrate. Mere registration of the case itself cannot be a ground for cancellation of licence unless it is shown that the applicant has a criminal record and has misused the gun given to him by threatening the public peace in the area. In the present case no such finding has been recorded nor any material has been disclosed before passing the impugned order.