BAIJ NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.1999/30.6.1999 (Annexure-4) passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram in Arms Case No. 9/98, whereby the licence of DBBL gun of the petitioner has been cancelled, as well as the appellate order dated 28.9.2004 passed in Arms Appeal No. 116 of 1999 by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna (Annexure-5), affirming the original order passed by the District Magistrate concerned and dismissing the appeal.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was granted Arms Licence No. 244 of 1972 Dawath/ 576 of 1971 Shahabad by the competent authority, however, the same was suspended as the petitioner alongwith other seven persons were made accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the First Information Report being Dawath Police Station Case No. 4 of 1991 was instituted against them. The licence was suspended till the result of the trial It is submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges as a judgment of acquittal has been passed by the trial court, a copy of which is appended as Annexure-3. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for revocation of suspension of license on the ground that neither any one has got any injury from his gun nor that was fired during the occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revocation has been denied and the licence has been cancelled by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 on the ground that it appears from the judgment of acquittal that due to compromise between the parties, the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner has not been acquitted on merit rather he has been acquitted as the prosecution could not establish the case due to the fact that the witnesses have become hostile due to some compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities cannot interpret the judgment of acquittal in this manner. It is submitted that from perusal of the judgment it does not appear that any compromise petition had been filed by the parties and was considered by the trial court rather the trial court has opined that it appears that due to some compromise arrived at between the parties out of court, the prosecution witnesses have not supported the allegation. However, the petitioner has been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges. In above view of the matter, it has been submitted that the order passed by the licensing authority is illegal and requires to be quashed.