LPA No. 1088 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1088 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 09, 2011 Santokh Singh …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 28.03.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that there was no legal infirmity in the order dated 21.07.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot division Faridkot or the original order dated 23.02.2010 (P-8) passed by the District Magistrate, Faridkot cancelling the Arms Licence No. 16023/DM/ Faridkot belonging to the appellant. There are categorical findings that on the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, the District Magistrate, Faridkot after issuing a show cause notice of the appellant, cancelled his arms licence and the appeal filed by him before the Commissioner, Faridkot division Faridkot has also been rejected. The basic reason was that he was accused in FIR No. 62 dated 12.05.2005 under Sections 452, 336, 506, 34 IPC read with Section 25/ 54/ 59 of the LPA No. 1088 of 2011 -2- Arms Act at Police Station City Faridkot. He was acquitted in the aforesaid case on 18.05.2009 (P-2). However, he is still accused in case FIR No. 11 dated 13.01.2009, registered under Sections 447, 440, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Kot Kapura, District Faridkot. The FIR is still pending and trial is in progress. 2. We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that possibility of misuse of arms licence in the wake of criminal proceedings, cannot be ruled out. To arm a person with a gun or pistol would require extreme pre-caution and a number of factors would weigh with the authorities while deciding the issue. It may be true that the appellant has been holding the arm licence for a long period, which has also been renewed. However, on account of apprehension expressed in the report sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot on 23.06.2009 as well as 09.10.2009 (P-6 and 7), the arm licence has to be cancelled. We do not find any reason to deviate from the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge and the District Magistrate, Faridkot as well as Commissioner, Faridkot division Faridkot. The appeal does not merit admission. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 09, 2011 Atul