Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMAL SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kamal Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 34915 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 53 (4 January 2005)

 

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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

The petitioner-Furkan was issued a licence no. 61 of DBBL Gun No. 2159698 in 1997.  On 22.3.2000, an F.I.R was lodged against him with regard to a property dispute between him and Ashirunnisha wife of Abdul Sattar. Case Crime No. 16 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 147,148,149,307,302,323,50434 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Mohabbatpur Painsa.  A show cause notice dated 9.6.2000 was issued to the petitioner by Addl. District Magistrate, Kaushambi- rewpondent no. 3 calling upon him to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.11.2000. By the impugned order dated 31.12.200 the aforesaid licence of the petitioner was cancelled.  The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 6.5.20002 and hence this petition.

The sole ground for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner, as appears from the impugned orders, is that aforesaid criminal case was pending against him.

The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit annexing therewith true copy of judgement and order dated 31.5.2003 acquitting the petitioner from the abovementioned criminal case. Now no criminal case is pending against the petitioner, hence the very basis of cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner is washed off.  Since the very basis for cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner does not exist anymore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be quahed.

The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed.  The impugned orders dated 31.12.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3 and dated 6.8.2002 passed by respondent no. 1 are quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

4.1.2005

kkb  


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.