JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 21.9.1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur (as contained in Annexure-2) as well as the appellate order dated 29.8.1989 passed by the Commissioner, Barellly (as contained in Annexure-1) dismissing his Appeal No. 5 of 1988 preferred against the order of the District Magistrate.

(2.) The portrayal of the relevant facts are in a narrow compass. The petitioner figured as an accused under Section 302, I.P.C. in Crime Case No. 175 of 1984, police station Rosa, district Shahjahanpur for allegedly having committed murder of one Ramendra through his licenced gun. A report was submitted by the police before the District Magistrate that the petitioner is giving threats to the witnesses of the aforementioned crime case by asking them not to depose against him by showing his gun. Vide order dated 16.5.85 the District Magistrate suspended the licence of his D.B.B.L. gun and asked him to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. On 7.8.1985 the petitioner filed his show cause. The petitioner went up in appeal which was finally dismissed vide order dated 12.2.1986. The petitioner was put on trial in S.T. No. 514 of 1985 which ended in his acquittal vide judgment and order dated 30.11.1987 passed by Sri R. P. Singh, special Judge, Shahjahanpur. While acquitting the petitioner, the learned Special Judge held that the prosecution story regarding Involvement of the accused (the writ petitioner) is not acceptable as his guilt could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution evidence is shakey and presence of alleged eye-witnesses Shiv Naraln Lal (P.W. 1) and Smt. Saraswati (P.W. 3) on the spot could not be established beyond doubt. The petitioner filed a copy of this judgment before the District Magistrate, who called for a report from the police. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur submitted his report dated 27.5.88 stating that the informant as well as the witnesses of the murder case are still having dangers from the petitioner. The learned District Magistrate came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not a fit person to retain licence of fire-arm and thereby there is justification to confirm the suspension order and cancelled his licence with Immediate effect. The petitioner went up in appeal. On his behalf, it was submitted that since he has been acquitted of the charge of murder, his licence has been wrongly cancelled. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Bodh Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1985 All LR 1141. His appeal was dismissed after holding that the appellant was given a benefit of doubt and that due to his acts and behaviour, there is still danger to the lives of the informant and the witnesses and thereby his licence has been cancelled in public Interest and from security point of view. The petitioner assails the validity of these two orders in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Manoj Mlshra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended as follows : (i) The appellate authority has not considered the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Ram Bodh, Singh's case (supra) wherein it was specifically laid down thus : ".....Even otherwise once petitioner was acquitted, those cases could not furnish material for cancellation of his licence." (ii) In Masiddun v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, 1972 AWR 3832, a learned single Judge of this Court has held as follows :