RAJEEV KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that arms license of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Bijnor by order dtd. 15/3/2007. The grounds for cancellation of the arms license was that police have sent a report dtd. 11/11/2003 with regard to the fact that petitioner, who is a licensee against whom NCR No. 24 of 2003 under Ss. 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. has been filed, has threatened one Chandan Singh of causing injury by firearm. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no injury was in fact caused by the firearm nor the firearm was ever used. The firearm of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has misused his arms license and there is apprehension that the petitioner may in future misuse the arms license against the public tranquility. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the NCR No. 24 of 2003 under Ss. 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. have been closed by the police themselves and in this respect necessary averments have been made in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no prosecution has been made in pursuance of the aforesaid NCR. He further submits that in all the cases pending against the petitioner which has been shown in the impugned order dtd. 15/3/2007 the petitioner has been acquitted which has been stated in paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition and the acquittal order of the petitioner in all the cases have been annexed in the supplementary affidavit at page no. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit to submit that the aforesaid facts have not been denied by the State except that the Case Crime No. 133 of 1992 is pending in which the petitioner has also been acquitted by the judgment dtd. 19/10/2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, District Bijnor. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed in the appeal is not tenable in law.