MEWA LAL @ KUNNU Vs. COMMISSIONER ALLAHABAD DIVISION ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.12.2004, passed by the opposite party No. 2 (District Magistrate, Pratapgarh) by which his arm license for D.B.B.L. gun has been cancelled. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by the opposite party No. 1 (Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad) whereby appeal preferred by him against the order dated 22.12.2004, has been dismissed. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who is associated with Bhartiya Janta Party, had been holder of D.B.B.L. gun license No. 182/2003, issued by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. As soon as petitioner got license, his political rival Sri I.P. Saroj, an associate of Bahujan Samaj Party lodged a false FIR at case crime No. 149 of 2003, under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. Since in the aforesaid case crime, the allegations also included misuse of a firearm, a separate case crime No. 150 of 2003 under section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner. Another case at crime No. 55 of 2004 under section 2/3 Goonda Act was also registered against him. The local police forwarded its report to the Superintendent of Police and in response thereof the Superintendent of Police wrote a letter dated 14.10.2004 to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh mentioning therein the lodging of the aforesaid criminal cases against the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Pratapgarh issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 18.10.2004 (Annexure No. 3) to which he submitted his reply on 8.12.2004 (Annexure No. 4) mentioning therein that he has been falsely implicated in the said criminal cases and, as such, his arm license did not deserve cancellation. The District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 22.12.2004 thereby cancelling the arm license of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a person of criminal nature as above mentioned criminal cases are pending against him. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Opposite Party No. 1) on 6.1.2005 which was dismissed by means of order dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure No. 2).

(2.) Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that so far as criminal cases pending against the petitioner are concerned, petitioner has been acquitted in case crime No. 149 of 2003, under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, district Pratapgarh by means of judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure No. 7), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. Another case of Goonda Act was withdrawn by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh himself vide order dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure No. 8), observing therein that on the basis of a single case pending against him, it would not be appropriate to take any action against the petitioner under Goonda Act.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is not even a single criminal against the petitioner that he had misused his fire arm license. Petitioner's arm license cannot be cancelled on the basis of false implication in any case.