PREM RAJ SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. Heard the learned coun sel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has challenged the impugned show cause notice dated 16-7-1996 asking him to show cause why his arm licence be not cancelled. Normally, this court does not interfere with a show cause notice. However, there is no absolute bar in this respect.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the allegations therein are that his brother Ramraj Patel is involved in certain criminal cases. In my opinion, this can not be a ground for cancelling the arm licence of the petitioner. A person cannot be punished for the sins of his relations. It often happens in the family that one brother has criminal tendency while the other brother is a decent and law abiding person. There is no allegation in the impugned notice that the petitioner is involved in any serious criminal case. There is no doubt a mention that he is involved in a case under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. but a perusal of Annexure-6-A of the petition snows that the real accused is Ramraj Patel, his brother. Thus in my opinion, the impugned notice dated 16-7-1996 is wholly arbitrary and is hereby quashed.