SARBDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 3.1.2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhojpur in Cr. Misc. No. 26 of 1993 by virtue of which the arms licence, which is a double barrel gun, stands cancelled for the reasons indicated therein. An appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner, which is Arms Appeal No. 8 of 2000, was also dismissed by order dated 30.9.2008. Both the orders are impugned in the present writ application as Annexures -6 and 7 respectively.

(2.) THE background to the present action of the respondent authorities is that an FIR was lodged on 28/29.4.1993 what is known as Udwant Nagar P. S. Case No. 76 of 1993. As per the FIR the petitioner and his other family members and criminal elements entered the house of the informant, fired indiscriminately, injured a few persons and killed two male and two female members in cold blood. The reason is supposed to be a land dispute between the parties for which civil litigations have been going on for many a years and probably the informant 'sside has succeeded even at the level of High Court. The accused persons were charge - sheeted after due investigation and a trial was held. The case is Sessions Trial No. 324 of 1993. By virtue of the order dated 20th September, 1995 in a 31/2 page judgment the sessions court acquits all the accused persons holding that the prime accused has become hostile and the matter has been compromised between the parties. After acquittal of the petitioner and other accused persons, the authority however keeping the background to the dispute and conduct of the petitioner in mind, decided to cancel the arms licence and seize the same. Petitioner was directed to surrender the arms and also a show cause was issued as to why cancellation be not effected.

(3.) THE District Magistrate, Bhojpur registered a case namely, Cr. Misc. No. 26 of 1993 under the Arms Act. Petitioner was given opportunity by the District Magistrate. After considering the evidence, material, as well as the judgment of the Sessions Judge, he was not impressed by the fact of acquittal of the petitioner of a criminal charge by the Sessions Judge. The learned District Magistrate went into the evidence which included the investigation which was made after such a serious crime, the supervision which was done by Dy. S.P. at the relevant time and the role of the petitioner who used the gun for committing murder of four innocent persons. This, according to the District Magistrate, was good enough ground to deny to the petitioner his right to possess arms, since it was used to oppress and not for self -defence. The licence therefore stood cancelled. The order in question came to be challenged in appeal. Learned Divisional Commissioner after examining the matter concurred withthe conclusions of the District Magistrate and held that since reasoning and materials have been duly discussed in the speaking order of the District Magistrate, the order does not require any interference in appeal. It is in this background that the petitioner now challenges Annexures -6 and 7, the orders in question.