Madhamsetty Shivakumar v. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Urban, Vijayawada

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Vijayawada City vide proceedings C.No.4648/G1/2001 dated 03.10.2001 in revoking his arms licence bearing No.11/98 CPO VC as illegal and arbitrary.

#2. The respondent cancelled the licence on the ground that the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.130 of 2001 for the offence under Sections 353, 332, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(i) of the Criminal Amendment Act, registered on the file of Krishnalanka Police Station and also that the petitioner has been conducting private panchayats and settling disputes by resorting to threats and intimidation of innocent people and that people are afraid of giving evidence or complaint against him.

#3. Petitioner submits that all the cases pending against him ended in acquittal including the case in Cr.No.130 of 2001 and therefore, his case may be reconsidered keeping in view the subsequent events.

#4. Counter has been filed stating that the arms licence bearing No.11/98 CPO Vijayawada City is revoked under Rule 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1956 and Rules 1962 after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner on the ground that he has been misusing the said licence for his illegal acts by terrorizing the public for his personal and illegal business purposes. It is stated that a case in Cr.No.281 of 1995 was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 506 read with 141 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act of Krishnalanka Police Station against one Mahaboob Jani and others with regard to the alleged murders of petitioner’s brother and in that connection as per the order of this Court, two gunmen were provided to protect his life and properties, as such, there is no need for the petitioner to possess a revolver for protection of his life or property. It is further stated that the petitioner is a notorious person and a case in Cr.No.130 of 2001 was registered against the petitioner on a report given by Sri Sivaiah, A.R.P.C 719 for manhandling him and threatening him and the case is under investigation. It is stated that, in fact, a rowdy sheet was opened against the petitioner in view of the pendency of the cases and in view of the aforesaid activities. However, it is stated that there is a remedy available to the petitioner before the appellate authority i.e. the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Rule 55 of the Rules 1962 framed under the Arms Act 1959.

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case in Cr.No.130 of 2001, in which charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, ended in acquittal by order dated 03.02.2003. He further submits that the other cases pending against the petitioner also ended in acquittal.

#6. As per Police Standing Order 602(2) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual Part I Volume II, merely because a rowdy sheeter is not figuring as an accused in the previous 5 years after the last case in which he was involved, it should not preclude the concerned authority to continue the history/rowdy sheet, if they are of the opinion that the activities of the said person are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and one affecting the peace and tranquility in the area or that the victims are not coming not forward to give complaint against him on account of threat from him. Therefore, it is for the authorities to consider the desirability to continue the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner. However, that is not the issue involved in this writ petition, the issue is whether the cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner is illegal and void. Admittedly, the impugned order is appeallable under Rule 55 of the Rules made under the Arms Act.

#7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the case in Cr.No.130 of 2001, based on which the licence was cancelled, ended in acquittal in C.C.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada by judgment dated 03.02.2003, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on filing such an appeal, the appellate authority may entertain the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 16, 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three days. (B/o) DSK