HARPRASAD NETREM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 28.7.2000 and 31.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly and the District Magistrate, Pilibhit respectively.

(3.) The District Magistrate vide its order dated 12.9.1996 suspended the fire-arm licence of the petitioner and issued a show-cause notice to him as to why his fire-arm licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his objection on 29.11.1998 stating, inter alia, that he was acquitted of the offence in pursuance of the non-cognizance report No. 242/96 under Sections 252 and 504 I.P.C. registered against him on 7.9.1996 at P.S. Neoria District Pilibhit. The order acquitting the petitioner from the charges under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act has been appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly who dismissed the same vide order dated 28.7.2000 on the ground of involvement and pendency of a criminal case, i.e., Case Crime No. l70/93.