Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11040 of 2010 ====================================================== Kalika Singh S/O Manbahal Singh R/O Vill.- Parwa, P.S.- Nokha (Dharampura), Distt.- Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 3. District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Rohtas At Sasaram 4. Superintendent Of Police, Rohtas At Sasaram 5. The Officer In-Charge Of Nokha (Dharampura) Police Station Dist.- Rohtas At Sasaram .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Narayan Singh Mr. Narendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (AAG2) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 26-03-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner prays for quashing order dated 13.7.2006 as contained in Annexure 2 by which the learned court below was pleased to cancel the Arms licence of the petitioner bearing Licence no. 0402/74 on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, namely, Nokha(Dharampura) Police Station Case No. 23 of 1998 under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner had been granted Arms licence for DBBL gun in 1974 vide Licence no. 402/1974. The petitioner submits Patna High Court CWJC No.11040 of 2010 (4) dt.26-03-2012 2 / 3 2 that the Licencing officer erred in not restoring the licence though he has been acquitted in the criminal case. It appears from the impugned order cancelling the licence that the District Magistrate relied upon the report dated 12.7.2005 of the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, wherein he stated that restoration of arms licence would affect the law and order situation. Order of the District Magistrate, Rohtas was upheld in appeal by the learned Commissioner Patna Division in Arms appeal no. 308 of 2006. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment in case of Akhileshwar Giri and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2000(4) PLJR 86. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner may apply for fresh licence which may be considered in accordance with law. I have heard counsel for the parties. It would appear from the order of the District Magistrate, Rohtas that the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas in his report also stated that in the present time he has not heard any complaint against the petitioner. Report of the Superintendent of Police is dated 12.7.2005. The order of the Collector cancelling licence is dated 13.7.2006 and we are now in the year 2012. It would appear Patna High Court CWJC No.11040 of 2010 (4) dt.26-03-2012 3 / 3 3 from the report of the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas that no untoward incident has been reported against the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. In the circumstances, I set aside order dated 13.7.2006, passed by the Collector, Rohtas as well as learned Commissioner, Patna Division and remand the matter to the Licencing officer to consider the issue afresh. In case, there is no untoward report against the petitioner, the Licencing officer would consider restoring the licence. The matter would be disposed of by learned Licencing officer within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.