Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4681 of 2012 ====================================================== Akhoury Awdhendra Kumar Son Of Late Akhoury Jainandan Prasad Proprietor Of M/s Jai Shastragar, Arms And Ammunition Dealer, Dharmasabha Bhawan, Ramna Road, Town And District Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Under Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Additional Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Utsav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh, AC to G.P.20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 13-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is an arms dealer as he has been allowed licence in Form XI, XII, XIII and XIV of the Arms Act, 1959. Request of the petitioner for renewal of the said licence granted in Form XI and XII has been rejected by the State Government and information to that effect has been communicated to the District Magistrate, Gaya under Memo No.6263 dated 18.8.2011, Annexure-8, copy whereof has also been given to the petitioner. 3. This writ petition has been filed assailing the aforesaid renewal as from the communication dated 18.8.2011, Annexure-8, it appears that rejection is on the basis that petitioner is accused in Civil Line P.S. Case No.90/86 registered for the Patna High Court CWJC No.4681 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2012 2/3 offences under Section 25(A/25/26) of the Arms Act and [STATUTE] which is the basis for the conclusion by the State Government that the character of the petitioner is doubtful. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid conclusion of the State Government is vitiated as petitioner has already been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case under judgment dated 25.2.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No.14/90/15/93, Annexure-3. It is further submitted that besides the said criminal case petitioner was/is neither accused nor convict in any other case and the conclusion of the Government that petitioner does not posses good character is wholly misconceived. 4. This writ petition was filed on 7.3.2012 after serving a copy of the petition on the counsel for the State, but till date State respondents have not chosen to dispute the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court has to proceed on the basis that the conclusion of the State Government that petitioner does not possess good character is vitiated as he has already been acquitted in the case referred to in the impugned communication. It is further pointed out that after issue of impugned communication arms licence of the petitioner granted under form XIII and XIV has also been renewed by the competent authority. Patna High Court CWJC No.4681 of 2012 (2) dt.13-12-2012 3/3 5. In view of the submissions noted above, I have no option but to quash the communication contained in Memo No.6263 dated 18.8.2011, Annexure-8 with direction to the State Government to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and pass appropriate order in the matter within a reasonable time not exceeding three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the competent authority in the State Government. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Rajesh/- (V.N. Sinha, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.