Naryan Dutt Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With these directions, writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 17, 18
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 308, 324, 325
Judgment
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 11th December, 2009 Hon(cid:146)ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate as well as Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2009 (annexure no. 7 to the writ petition) by which his arms license has been suspended. This Court has perused the provisions of Section 17 and 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Full-Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1986 Allahabad 142 being relied upon by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was having an arms license and consequently by orders of the licensing authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Champawat he had to deposit the said license as a criminal case bearing no.
352 of 2006 under Section 147/324/325/308 IPC was pending against him. The petitioner was consequently acquitted by the trial court. The petitioner was also charged under the Arms Act, 1959 and since there was no evidence against the petitioner under the Arms Act and vide order dated 14.9.2009, it was directed that the gun and the license be returned to the petitioner. Immediately after twenty days a report has been filed by the 2 In-charge, Kotwali, district Champawat which states that he has been informed that the petitioner is threatening other persons of the village and also using the arms for killing wild animals. On the basis of the said report, which has not been elaborated by any evidence or any investigation, the District Magistrate, Champawat passed an order suspending the arms license of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 to appeal before the Commissioner.
Operative part
However, this writ petition is being disposed of by the following order at the initial stage itself. The suspension of the arms license of the petitioner in a casual manner without holding any investigation or without there being any plausible material before the licensing authority, does not appear to be correct. However, the District Magistrate, Champawat is directed to hold an enquiry into the matter and if in that enquiry he comes to the conclusion that there are plausible reasons and relevant evidence against the petitioner or that it is not in the public interest that the petitioner should carry his arms license, then the District Magistrate may proceed under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 for suspending or cancelling the arms license of the petitioner, as the case might be. The District Magistrate shall take a decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
11.12.2009 Avneet (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With these directions, writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 17, 18; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 308, 324, 325.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.