IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11241 of 2005 SARYU GARAIN SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN GARAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARDIH, POLICE STATION ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA ……PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF 5. DY. S.P., HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 6. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ISLAMPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT NALANDA …….RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, J.C.to S.C.IX. --------- 2. 21.01.2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.7.1999 (Annexure 3) passed by respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby he has cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 14.6.2005 (Annexure 4), whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by respondent no.2, the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that Islampur P.S.case No.166 of 1997 was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. According to the allegation, petitioner used rifle which he obtained on the basis of the arms licence given to him. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda recommended for cancellation of licence. Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the 2 licence be not cancelled and in response thereto he had filed his show cause. On consideration of the materials on record, the District Magistrate, Nalanda by order dated 13.7.1999 passed in Arms Case No.13 of 1998 (Annexure 3) cancelled the licence. Petitioner, aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 14.6.2005 passed in Case No.121 of 2000 (Annexure 4) dismissed the appeal. Aforesaid orders of the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner are being impugned in the present application. Mr. Pramod Kumar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in Islampur P.S.case No.166 of 1997 charge sheet was submitted, but by order dated 27.3.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No.542 of 1999 he was discharged and, as such, the very foundation of the order canceling the licence does not exist and on this ground alone the impugned orders are fit to be quashed. I do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Kumar. Petitioner has been discharged in the case on the ground that compromise petition was filed and good relationship restored between the party. It is not on account of lodging of the criminal case that the arms licence was cancelled, but on the basis of the allegation made therein that petitioner used the arm in commission of the crime. Mr. Kumar, then submits that according to the first 3 information report, nobody had sustained injury and hence the licence of the petitioner ought not to have cancelled, only on the ground that it was used in the commission of crime. I do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Kumar also. Very fact that the arm was used for unlawful purposes can be a ground to cancel the licence, notwithstanding the fact that nobody had sustained the injury. Mr. Kumar, then submits that the arms licence has been cancelled only on the ground that in future it can be misused and according to him on mere apprehension arms licence was not fit to be cancelled. I do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Kumar also. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, it was apprehended that he may misuse his rifle which he is possessing by virtue of the licence granted to him. Under such circumstance, it cannot be said that the licence has been cancelled without any justification. While assailing the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Mr. Kumar submits that same has been dismissed by a cryptic order. I do not find any substance in this submission also. The petitioner’s plea that he has been acquitted in the criminal case was considered by the Divisional Commissioner and it observed that petitioner has been discharged on the account of the compromise. The Divisional Commissioner took into account 4 the conduct of the petitioner, which had come during the course of investigation and came to the conclusion that the licence was rightly cancelled. I do not find any error in the same. Application stands dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ.) Narendra/