C.W.P. No.14289 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14289 of 2009 Date of Decision.13.05.2010 Jagraj Singh son of Shri Chet Singh, caste Kumhar, resident of village Jandwala Jatan, Tehsil Dabwali, District Hisar ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Civil Secretariat Haryana, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner challenges the cancellation of arms licence on the ground that there is a criminal case, which is pending against him. Learned counsel points out that the cancellation has been done under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, which is reproduced as below:- “17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licenses:- (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a license for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a license- (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to C.W.P. No.14289 of 2009 -2- suspend or revoke the license; or” 2. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is two-fold (i) the petitioner has given a certificate from the Gram Panchayat that there is no danger of his possession of the arms licence and that should satisfy the criterion. The second contention is that the mere pendency of a criminal case itself ought not to be a ground for revocation of licence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State supports the decision already taken on the ground that the case is not merely pending but after trial, the petitioner was convicted for offence under the NDPS Act. The pendency of the case, which the petitioner pleads in his support, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, must be understood in the context that it was not merely pending trial of the criminal case but a conviction had been rendered and the case is pending in appeal where there has been no suspension of the order of conviction itself. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ram Murti Madhukar VS. District Magistrate, Sitapur 1999(3) RCR 654 where the Court held that mere pendency of a criminal case was not a ground for suspension. This decision ought not to be understood as laying down a law that whenever there was merely a pendency of criminal case, a licence cannot be suspended. It all depends on the nature of a criminal case and the safety concerns to allow for a person to possess an arms licence. The conviction of the petitioner in NDPS case is not the same as what the Allahabad High Court was dealing C.W.P. No.14289 of 2009 -3- with when the application for grant of renewal of his license came after an acquittal in the criminal case. When the conviction stands as on date and when the conviction is seen to be in NDPS, the safety perception of the executive shall prevail and thereby no scope for a judicial intervention. 5. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 13, 2010 Pankaj*