STATE OF U.P. Vs. VISHRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13 December 2013. The learned Single Judge has issued a direction permitting the respondent in this Appeal to utilize an amount of Rs.68,856/- out of Rs.1.00 lac which was deposited by the State, so as to enable him to purchase a new fire arm in lieu of the fire arm which was deposited by him with a licenced fire arms dealer who committed suicide and from whose premises the licenced fire arm of the respondent has been reported missing.

(2.) The respondent held an arms licence in respect of a rifle of N.P. .315 bore. The licenced rifle was deposited by the respondent on 18 September 2010 with a licenced fire arms dealer (Capt. Arms Store) at Farrukhabad. The receipt shows that the rifle was deposited for repairing in an old and damaged condition. The respondent had sought a mandamus in the writ petition to the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad to return the fire arm that had been deposited. The proprietor of Capt. Arms Store committed suicide on 25 December 2010. Following the suicide by the fire arms dealer, a Committee consisting of the Circle Officer, Farrukhabad and the Inspector of the concerned Police Station inspected the shop of the fire arms dealer and after preparing an inventory of the fire arms which were available in the shop submitted a report on 22 December 2012. The inventory did not mention the fire arm which was deposited by the respondent. On 15 May 2013 and 16 September 2013, the District Magistrate addressed communications to the Principal Secretary (Home), seeking guidelines in respect of the weapons stolen from the shops of licenced fire arms dealers. The respondent filed an application on 14 September 2011 before the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, seeking release of his fire arm and thereafter filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in 2013. In the writ petition, the respondent averred that he had deposited his licenced fire arm due to Panchayat elections on 18 September 2010; that the arms dealer committed suicide and though a Committee had been formed, the rifle was not being released. The respondent submitted that he has a fundamental right to life and liberty and, accordingly, sought a mandamus to the District Magistrate for the release of his fire arm.

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 23 October 2013 by the learned Single Judge by which the State was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1.00 lac before the Registrar General of the Court. By the judgment dated 13 December 2013, the learned Single Judge held that (i) the rifle of the respondent was deposited during the Panchayat election of 2010 pursuant to the direction of the district administration in September 2010 before the fire arms dealer who committed suicide, as a result of which the respondent could not receive the weapon and later on it was found that the weapon was lost; (ii) the District Magistrate constituted a Committee which submitted a report on 22 December 2012 indicating that the weapon had been stolen; (iii) though on 7 March 2013 the District Magistrate had ordered that an FIR should be lodged, it was lodged only on 5 December 2013 and the matter is under investigation; and (iv) who was responsible for the loss of weapon is not known and the district administration had acted casually by constituting a Committee in 2012 though the fire arms dealer had died in 2010. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed that since the weapon had been lost, it was open to the respondent to purchase a new weapon and for this purpose the respondent was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.68,856/- from the amount deposited in the Court. The District Magistrate was also permitted to recover the said amount from the person who was responsible for the loss of the weapon.