Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHEO RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sheo Raj Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 36026 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 18780 (11 December 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36026 of 2001

Sheo Raj Singh

Vs.

The Commissioner, Agra Region Agra and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has been license of gun, license no. 8829. Age of petitioner has been described to be 75 years in the year 2001. Case Crime No. 163 of 1992 under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 436, 506 and 307 IPC Police Station Sirpura District Etah had been registered against the petitioner and various other persons. District Magistrate, who is Licensing Authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner to which petitioner filed his reply. Licensing Authority was not satisfied with the reply so submitted by the petitioner, order of cancellation of fire arm licence was passed on 23.01.1998. Petitioner file Appeal as is envisaged under Section 18 of Indian Arms Act. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal in the aforesaid criminal case in which First Information Report dated 23.12.1992 has been lodged on the basis of which licence of petitioner was cancelled was put up for trial and trial court on account of no evidence coming forward proceeded with the same and ultimately order of acquittal has been passed. Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of Indian Arms Act, before the Commissioner Agra Region Agra, has been rejected on 25.06.2001. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. On presentation of the present writ petitioner before this Court, this Court passed interim order in favour of the petitioner.

Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, contended with vehemence that once the ground which has been made foundation and basis for cancellation of fire arm license of the petitioner was the criminal case which has resulted into acquittal then the order of cancellation is unsustainable, as such order cancelling the fire arm licence of the petitioner as affirmed in appeal is liable to be quashed by this Court.

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that in the present case order of acquittal is based on witnesses being hostile and no credibility could be attached to the same, as such action which has been taken is justifiable action, as such no interference is warranted.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging in the present case is that proceeding for cancellation of licence of fire arm licence has been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of First Information Report lodged against the petitioner being Case Crime No. 163 of 1992 under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 436, 506 and 307 IPC Police Station Sirpura District Etah, in this background it would not be appropriate for the licensee to retrain the fire arm on account of his criminal tendency. The ground which has been made foundation for cancellation of fire arm licence of the petitioner is the criminal case registered against him and same was pending at that point of time but at subsequent of point time the said criminal case has resulted into acquittal. The ground on which fire arm of the petitioner has been cancelled has become non-existence and thus no credibility could be attached to the same.

Consequently, order dated 23.01.1998 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 25.06.2001 passed by respondent no. 1 are hereby quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed.

No order as to cost.

Dated 11.12.2007

Dhruv


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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