Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6051 of 2013 =========================================================== Diwakar Kumar Singh Son Of Late Brij Bhushan Singh Resident Of Mohalla - Garhpar, Police Station - Biharsharif, District - Nalanda, At Biharsharif .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda At Biharsharif 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nalanda At Biharsharif
Legal Reasoning
4. Te Additional District Magistrate, Incharge Of Fire Arms, Law And Order, District - Nalanda At Biharsharif 5. The Arms Magistrate, Biharsharif Collectorate, District Nalanda At Biharsharif .... .... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kuber Pathak, AC to SC 14 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-11-2015 I have heard the parties and perused the records. Petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure 1 which is an order dated 8.9.2012 (Annexure 1) passed in Arms Case No. 23 of 2002 by the District Magistrate cum licensing authority, Nalanda by Patna High Court CWJC No.6051 of 2013 dt.09-11-2015 2/5 which he has cancelled the arms licences bearing nos. 53/96 and 2/99 granted for double barrel gun as well as revolver respectively as well as the appellate order dated 16.1.2013 / 24.1.2013 passed in Arms Appeal Case No. 524/2012, as contained in Annexure 2, by which the order passed by the licensing authority has been affirmed and appeal has been rejected. The petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion also by filing C.W.J.C. No. 19953 of 2012 which was disposed vide Annexure 3 granting him liberty to challenge the aforesaid order by filing a statutory appeal before Divisional Commissioner, Patna which was eventually filed and dismissed vide Annexure 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his licence has been cancelled and grounds of his involvement in certain criminal cases which have been instituted due to political rivalry and in some of the cases judgment of acquittal has already been passed in his favour. It is contended that Sessions Trial No. 40/1993 arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 444/91 registered under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act is pending for evidence before the Additional sessions Judge V, Nalanda since the year 1993 itself and in fact the licences were granted during its pendency and as such the same cannot be made a ground for cancellation. It is also Patna High Court CWJC No.6051 of 2013 dt.09-11-2015 3/5 contended that the petitioner was not even named in the first information report in the aforesaid case rather he was subsequently dragged into the litigation. So far the Sessions Trial No. 198/2007 arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 142/2002 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 353 and 371 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of Explosive Substance Act is concerned, it is submitted that almost all the chargesheeted witnesses have been declared hostile and in other two cases arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 155/2002 and Bihar P.S. Case No. 199/01 judgments of acquittal have been passed by the Court and as such the order of cancellation of is arms licences should be set aside. It is next contended that for the inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial specially Sessions Trial No. 40/93, the petitioner cannot be held responsible as the trials are being kept pending in violation of several decisions of the Apex Court directing the Courts of India for speedy trial of the criminal cases. It is next contended that subsequently the Superintendent of Police has written to the Deputy Collector, Legal, Nalanda vide letter dated 12.7.2008 contained in Annexure 5 that now there is no complaint regarding the conduct of the petitioner and he also happens to be the Councillor of Ward No. 27 and a member of Peace Committee of Biharsharif. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the State has Patna High Court CWJC No.6051 of 2013 dt.09-11-2015 4/5 submitted that several criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioner with serious charges which has been dealt with in the impugned order passed by the licensing authority and even if in two cases the judgment of acquittal has been passed, remaining two cases are still there in which he is facing criminal trial and charges are very serious against him. As such, the licensing authority has come to the conclusion that it would be necessary for the security of public peace and safety to revoke the arms licences of the petitioner. The appellate authority has also affirmed the order. Upon consideration of rival contentions, this Court does not find force in submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. A Full Bench of this Court in Kapildeo Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and others [AIR 1987 Patna 122] has held in clear terms that cancellation or suspension of licence would depend upon the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority and even during the pendency of the criminal trial the licenses can be suspended or revoked. However, the licensing authority has been cautioned by observing that such criminal cases may vary from petty matter, which may not invite such stern step, to the cases in which capital punishment can be inflicted in which such action may be required. However, in the present case, since a criminal trial pending against the petitioner on serious charges, one being under Section 302 of the Patna High Court CWJC No.6051 of 2013 dt.09-11-2015 5/5 Indian Penal Code along with Section 27 of Arms Act and another with certain sections of other Indian Penal Code along with Section 3/4 of the Explosive substance Act, in my considered opinion the decision of the licensing authority cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, this writ application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. However, in case a judgment of acquittal is passed in the pending criminal trials in favour of the petitioner he would be at liberty to approach the licensing authority once again for grant of fresh licence. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- U