GAU DIN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Magistrate, Banda, by his order dated 7-10-1971 suspended the gun licence of the petitioner. He was further required to show cause why the licence be not cancelled. In the notice it was alleged that the petitioner "has become criminal type of man. He sells illicit arms and gets the crimes committed." Reference was also made to a report lodged by one Rameshwar Kurmi under Sections 504/506 IPC. In his reply the petitioner alleged that the reports against the petitioner were motivated by the Station Officer, Bisenda, who wanted illegal gratification from him. Details of the occasions when such demands were made were set out. With regard to the report lodged by Rameshwar Kurmi it was alleged that a litigation between the petitioner and Rameshwar Kurmi in respect of a plot in village Vilathu was pending and the Station Officer, Bisenda, colluded with him in getting the said report lodged. In coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to hold the gun licence the District Magistrate relied on certain statements, said to have been recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, and also on the fact that a report against the petitioner had been lodged by Rameshwar Kurmi. THE learned Commissioner affirmed the decision of the District Magistrate.

(2.) IN the notice issued to the petitioner a vague allegation was made that the petitioner had become a criminal type of man ; that he sells illicit arms and gets crimes committed. No specific instance of sale of illicit arms or any crime committed at his instance was mentioned in the notice. Particulars of the cases in which statements were recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code are not available either in the order of the District Magistrate or in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to show that these statements were false and fabricated. As regards the report lodged by Rameshwar Kurmi it is not known whether the petitioner was prosecuted in a competent court on the basis of that report. Merely because some one chose to lodge a report against the petitioner, which may have been occasioned because of a pending litigation between the parties, it could not be made a valid ground for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to hold the gun licence. The materials on which the petitioner's licence has been cancelled, being too vague, do not justify an inference, that it was not safe to allow a fire arm' in the hands of the petitioner.