Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Kamlesh Alias Dadu v. The D.M., Banda & Others - WRIT - C No. 16641 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 10923 (2 July 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



(Judgment reserved on 23.05.2007)

(Judgment delivered on  02.07.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16641 of 2004

Kamlesh @ Dadu Versus District Magistrate, Banda and others.

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 4.10.2002 passed by District Magistrate, Banda in case No. 8/11 of 2002 under section 17 Arms Act State Vs. Kamlesh @ Dadu. The District Magistrate through an earlier order dated 16.1.2002 had suspended arm licence of the petitioner to hold a rifle on the ground that he was involved in a murder case. Petitioner filed application for recall of the said order. Through impugned order dated 4.10.2002, said application was rejected and it was directed that petitioner's arm licence shall remain suspended until decision of the criminal case i.e case Crime No. 216 of 2001, under section 302 I.P.C in which petitioner was accused. District Magistrate in the impugned order observed that during investigation in the criminal case it was found that the deceased  had been killed by the petitioner from his rifle and petitioner was named in the FIR and charge sheet had been filed on 31.12.2001.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case under section 302 IPC and at present his appeal against the said judgement is pending in the High Court and by order passed in the appeal petitioner has been released on bail.

The question of suspension of licence has recently been considered by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in an authority reported in Ramesh Singh Vs. State of U.P and others 2007 (3) ADJ 606. The Hon'ble Judge has taken into consideration all the earlier full bench authorities of this court on the point in question particularly Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of U.P. 1984 AWC 145 and Rana Pratap Singh and another Vs. State of U.P 1995 ACJ 200.

In the said authority, it has been held that even though mere involvement in a criminal case is not sufficient to suspend or cancell the arm licence, however, if the allegations in the criminal case are such that they warrant suspension or cancellation of arm licence then on the basis of the said allegations suspension or cancellation order can be passed.

In para 17 of the writ petition, it has been mentioned that trial of the criminal case has been completed. The Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Banda in its judgement dated 28.8.2003 given in Session Trial No. 116 of 2002 Annexure III-A to the writ petition categorically held that all the accused used arms in their possession to kill the deceased and petitioner Kamlesh fired from his rifle causing injuries to the deceased resulting in his death.

There was nothing wrong in suspending the arm licence during pendency of criminal case. In the criminal case ultimately the petitioner was found involved and it was held that petitioner fired from his rifle upon the deceased causing his death.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a single Judge authority of this court reported in Ram Murti Madhukar Vs. D.M Sitapur 1998 ACJ 1014. In the said case, it was held that mere pendency of criminal case under section 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC can not be a ground for suspending the arm licence. In the instant case, it was not mere pendency of criminal case but nature of allegation against the petitioner on the basis of which his arm licence was suspended, hence, the said authority is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

Even though appeal is pending in this High Court and appeal is  continuation of case, however, the order suspending the petitioner's arm licence can not be set-aside merely on the ground that petitioner has been released on bail. Under section 17 (3) power of suspending licence can be exercised for such period as is thought fit by the authorities concerned. The impugned order of suspension can not be said to be indefinite. In case petitioner is acquitted in the appeal then he may at once apply for revocation of the suspension order. On filing of such application, suspension order shall be set-aside. However, if order of conviction is maintained in the appeal then the District Magistrate shall at once initiate proceeding for cancellation of arm licence.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Date: 2.07.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.