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


Brihaspati Sharan v. Commissioner & Others - WRIT - C No. 21233 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 15927 (13 September 2006)


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).


                                                                               Court No.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21233 of 2000

Brihaspati Sharma         Vs.         Commissioner, Moradabad & Ors

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The fire arm license of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 19.12.1997 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 18.1.2000 passed by Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, this writ petition has been filed.

I have heard Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Although more than six years have passed but till date no counter affidavit has been filed. In such circumstances, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.

In the notice for cancellation of the fire-arm license of the petitioner, the charge was only with regard to a police report having been filed against the petitioner under section 30 of the Arms Act. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, his license was cancelled by order dated 19.12.1997 on such charges. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed on the same grounds. The petitioner has already been acquitted in case crime no. 59 of 1995 under section 30 of the Arms Act filed against him. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has been involved in any other criminal case or that he is a person of criminal antecedent.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the sole criminal case and keeping in view that there are no other criminal case pending against him or that the petitioner is a person of criminal antecedent, the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be set aside.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.12.1997 and 18.1.2000 passed by Respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively are quashed. No order as to cost.

Dt/- September 13, 2006




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.