IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5629 of 2010 1. Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Ram Naresh Singh Permanent R/O Vill.- Rampur Sindai, P.S.- Barbigha, Distt.- Sheikhpura Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Home Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger 3. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Sheikhpura 5. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sheikhpura 6. The Officer In-Charge, Barbigha Police Station, Sheikhpura ----------- 2 05.08.2011 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, learned A.C. to A.A.G.7 for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 240 dated 04.04.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura whereby the Licence of Rifle of the petitioner has been cancelled inter alia on the grounds of involvement of the petitioner in a case arising out of Barbigha P.S. Case No. 63 of 2007 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 341, 323,504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner having been found to have offended the provisions of Sections 17(3) (b) and (c) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been visited with the punishment of cancellation of the Arms Licence along with his brother Ajay Kumar. The order of the District Magistrate is placed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition and was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Arms Appeal No. 17 of 2009 vide order 2 passed on 07.10.2009 placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition with the stipulation that the order requires no interference until the conclusion of the criminal case. The facts of the case in brief is that following institution of a criminal case, arising from Barbigha P.S. Case No. 63 of 2007, and the involvement of the petitioner therein, the Arms Licence of the petitioner and his brother Ajay Kumar was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura for alleged violation of the provisions of Section 17(3) (b) and (c) of the Act. On appeal being filed, the Divisional Commissioner, Munger, by the impugned order dated 7.10.2009, while allowing the appeal of the brother Ajay Kumar and restoring his Licence, has affirmed the order of the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura insofar as the petitioner is concerned and hence the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to the institution of the case in question arising from Barbigha P.S. Case No. 63 of 2007 there were two other cases instituted against the petitioner and his brother and both of resulted in their acquittal and thus at the stage of consideration of the present case, there was no other criminal case pending against the petitioner save and except the case arising out of Barbigha P.S. Case No. 63 of 2007. He submits that it is on the ground of acquittal in the other cases that the licence of his brother was restored by the Divisional Commissioner, but his prayer was refused on grounds of pendency of the said criminal case. It is contended that the perusal of the F.I.R. placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition manifestly shows that the petitioner is neither named in 3 the F.I.R. nor any allegation is attributed to him. It is contended that the involvement of the petitioner is an afterthought and it is in the course of investigation that the informant gave away the name of the present petitioner and also assigned a role of firing by a revolver. It is contended that even the said allegation made by the informant stands falsified inasmuch as he is an owner of licenced rifle and not any revolver. It further contended that from the place of occurrence no cartridges fired from any rife has been recovered by the investigating agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nodoubt in terms of Section 14(1)(b)(3) of the Act it is subjective satisfaction of the Licensing Authority to grant or refuse the issuance of the Licence but that has to be considered along with the facts and circumstances prevailing. It is stated that provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act order clearly stipulates the circumstances in which the licence can either be suspended or cancelled. It is thus contended that the action of the Licensing authority in proceeding to cancel the licence of the petitioner for alleged violation of the statutory provisions of Section 17(3) (b) and (c) of the Act, cannot be sustained as the Licensing Authority has rejected the prayer of the petitioner without showing any subjective satisfaction rather on a mere pendency of a criminal case. Learned counsel for the State opposing the contentions of the petitioner submits that as admittedly the criminal case is pending against the petitioner hence the impugned order requires no interference. It is apparent that the Licence of the petitioner along with his 4 brother was cancelled by reason of pending criminal cases including Barbigha P.S. Case No. 63 of 2007. The petitioner and his brother were acquitted in other cases. The petitioner was named in Barbigha P.S. Case No. 63 of 2007 but not his brother. It is perhaps in this back ground that the appellate authority restored the Licence of the brother but did not interfere with the order of cancellation of Licence of the petitioner, pending the outcome in the criminal case. The statutory provisions of the Act inter alia provides for cancellation or suspension of the arms Licence by reason of conviction of a licence holder in a criminal case. It is manifest that the Licence of the petitioner was cancelled for alleged violation of Section 17(3) (b) and (c) i.e danger to public safety and security and suppression of material information and or furnishing false information and not by reason of conviction in any criminal case. The order passed by the Licensing authority no where discusses as to how the petitioner was found violating those provision and is silent on this aspect. The Appellate authority has simply rejected his prayer on grounds of pending criminal case, without showing any subject satisfaction for the denial considering that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R and his named transpired during the course of investigation. These aspects have not been considered either by the Licensing Authority while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner or the appellate authority. In the result the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 07.10.2009 passed in Arms Appeal No. 17 of 2009 in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura are quashed and set aside. The matter is 5 remitted to the Licensing Authority being the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura to consider the prayer of the petitioner afresh in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of hearing and dispose of the same within a period of 3 months from of the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)