JAGDISH RAWAT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is made to an order dated 3.4.1995 passed by the competent authority cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner and order Annexure P-3 dated 3.2.1996 passed by the appellate authority affirming the aforesaid order.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that a show cause notice was issued to him for suspension and revocation of his arms licence on the ground of his involvement in Crime No. 32/1992 under section 107/116 (3) of CrPC. It is the case of the petitioner that at that point of time in the year 1992 when the incident is said to have been taken place, petitioner was neither prosecuted nor was proceeded against in any manner whatsoever for having committed offence, apprehending breach of peace, the order was passed. However, it is stated by Shri A.K. Barua, Senior Counsel that without there being any cogent material available on record with regard to misuse of the arms, petitioner has been visited with a penal order resulting in cancellation of his arms licence which was granted to him for self-defence being a handi capped person, notice was issued and the petition is pending since 1998 but till date no reply has been filed by the respondents-State.

(3.) APART from aforesaid, it is also to be taken note of that the appellate authority has not considered the question raised by the petitioner in the matter. Merely on the ground that report of the Superintendent of police indicates that there is likelihood of breach of peace in the area because of the incident, petitioner's licence has been cancelled. It is clear that during investigation of the crime, name of the petitioner had figured but in spite of aforesaid the fact remains that no case was registered against the petitioner, he was never prosecuted for committing any offence and in these proceedings also, there is no material to indicate as to in what manner breach of peace was apprehended and as to how the petitioner was responsible for the same, no material has been provided on the basis of which it can be concluded that the petitioner was likely to misuse the arms for any unlawful purpose. In that view of the matter passing of the aforesaid order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order Annexure P-2 dated 3.4.1995 passed by the competent authority on the ground of order Annexure P-3 dated 3.2.1996 by the appellate authority are quashed. Respondents are directed to take action for restoration of the licence of the petitioner in accordance with law in case nothing adverse is found to be available against the petitioner as on date. Petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.