IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5064 of 2005 Pradeep Yadav son of late Kailashpati Yadav, resident of N.A.C. Road, P.S., Town and District Khagaria and native place now at Balughat Road, Sultanganj, P.S. Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur .. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger, 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Khagaria, 4. The Superintendentof Police, Khagaria, 5. The Officer-incharge, Khagaria Police Station, Khagaria, 6. The Officer-incharge, Sultanganj Police Station, Bhagalpur, … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajeev Lochan, AC to GA 9 … 5 11.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.03.2005 passed by the Division Commissioner, Munger, respondent no. 2 in Appeal Case No. 15/2002-03 as contained in Annexure 6, whereby and whereunder he has affirmed the order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the District Magistrate in Arms Case No. 37/1997 as contained in Annexure 5 revoking licence no. 16 of 1997 granted to the petitioner for rifle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arms licence has been revoked by the respondent no. 3 on the ground that the petitioner, while applying for the 2 licence, has shown his present and permanent address as of Khagaria, though his permanent address was of Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, where eight criminal cases were pending against him. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that only in one case, i.e. Case No. 36 of 1999, allegation was under the Arms Act and in that case a judgment of acquittal has been passed in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that in other cases either the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of suspicion only or the cases were not under the provisions of the Arms Act. In some cases the petitioner is not even an accused. It is further submitted that these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the authorities while passing the impugned orders. It is also contended that the requirement under Form-A for grant of licence is that the applicant should furnish the number of cases in which he has been convicted or has been ordered to execute a bond under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure for keeping peace or good behaviour or has been prohibited from having the arms and ammunitions. Learned counsel tried to impress upon the Court that even in case the permanent address of Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, would have 3 been furnished by the petitioner, it would not have been necessary to give the details of the cases pending against him. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner deliberately suppressed his permanent address of Sultanganj so that no inquiry could be made by the licensing authority with regard to the criminal cases pending against him. In above view of the matter, upon consideration of the materials brought on record, it appears that the authorities, while considering the issue of grant of licence under the Arms Act, have a right to inquire about the factum of pending criminal cases against the person who has applied for grant of arms licence and in view of the fact that it is admitted that the petitioner did not disclose his permanent address of Sultanganj coupled with the fact that so many criminal cases were pending against him at the time of applying for licence, it appears that suppression has been deliberate and has sufficiently prevented the authorities from making inquiry against him regarding the 4 criminal cases at Sultanganj. Thus, I find no error in the finding recorded by the respondent no. 3 as well as the appellate authority, i.e., the respondent no. 2, the Divisional Commissioner, Munger. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, if the petitioner applies afresh for grant of arms licence explaining those criminal cases and the subsequent events that he has been acquitted of the charges in some of the cases and explaining other cases, the concerned authority would be at liberty to take a decision considering the same in accordance with law and on its own merit and also considering the past conduct of the petitioner. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)