Ishrat Ali vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate, Kanpur under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, cancelling arms licence of the petitioner as also the order dated

31.07.2024, passed by the respondent no.2 Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was having a arms licence, which was cancelled only on account of lodging of a criminal case against him in Case Crime No.347 of 2020, under Sections 336 IPC and 30 of Arms Act, Police Station Chamanganj, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. Law is well settled that pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel the arms licence. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Anuraj Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and others being Writ-C No.27534 of 2025, decided on 26.09.2025, wherein similar controversy has been decided. Paragraph nos.12 to 20 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant and are reproduced hereinafter:- "12. This Court in the case of Jay Bhagwan Kanodia Vs. The Commissioner and another decided on 26.07.2012 and Ram Singh Vs. 2 WRIC No. 35600 of 2024 State of U.P. and others decided on 28.03.2019 has held that fire arms licence can only be cancelled if it falls within sub Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act.

13. The provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act provides various conditions for variation/cancellation or suspension of the arms licence, which is reproduced as under:- "17.Variation, suspension and revocation of licences- 3.The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence- (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act ; or (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (c)if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it;or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence."

14. In the case of the Suresh Singh Yadav (supra) and Amar Singh (supra), this Court has specifically held that mere pendency of criminal cases or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for suspension or cancellation of firearm licence under Section 17 of the Act. The same view was also taken by the different Benches of this Court in the case of Ram Murti Madhukar (supra), Ram Karpal Singh (supra) and Ram Prasad (supra).

15. A licence may be cancelled, inter alia on the ground that it is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety' to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licensee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with 3 WRIC No. 35600 of 2024 security of the public peace or public safety. There should be something more than mere enmity. There should be some evidence of the provocative utterances of the licensee or of his suspicious movements or of his criminal designs and conspiracy in reinforcement of the evidence of enmity. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of facts and circumstances from which an inference of threat to public security or public peace may be deduced. The District Magistrate will have to take a decision on the facts of each case. But in the instant case there 'is nothing in his order to indicate that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Mere enmity is not sufficient.

16. The District Magistrate did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 17 at all. His order gives an impression of having been made in a mechanical manner. The cancellation of a licence destroys a valuable privilege of a free citizen of a free country. The District Magistrate ought to fairly consider the facts and circumstances of each case and should also bear in mind the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms that the law does not give them a free hand.

17. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the order impugned was passed by the licensing authorities cancelling the firearm license of the petitioner only on the ground that one criminal case is pending against the petitioner which is a complete violation of law laid down by this Court specially in the case of Suresh Singh Yadav & Amar Singh (supra) in which it is held that mere pendency of the criminal cases is not sufficient ground to cancel the firearm license.

18. In this view of the matter, the order dated 01.02.2026 passed by the respondent no.3-District Magistrate, Jaunpur under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.2-Commissioner Varanasi Division, Varanasi under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside.

19. The petition is allowed.

20. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur/respondent no.3 is directed to pass fresh order in the matter taking into consideration observations made 4 WRIC No. 35600 of 2024 herein above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

5. In view of the aforesaid observations, it is clear that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for suspension or cancellation of firearm licence under Section 17 of the Act.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the respondent no.3 as also the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the respondent no.2 are hereby quashed. Respondent no.3 is directed to pass a fresh order in respect of restoring arms licence of the petitioner, keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. October 17, 2025 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.) ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the respondent no.3 District Magistrate, Kanpur under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, cancelling arms licence of the petitioner as also the order dated

31.07.2024, passed by the respondent no.2 Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was having a arms licence, which was cancelled only on account of lodging of a criminal case against him in Case Crime No.347 of 2020, under Sections 336 IPC and 30 of Arms Act, Police Station Chamanganj, District Kanpur Nagar.

4. Law is well settled that pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel the arms licence. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Anuraj Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and others being Writ-C No.27534 of 2025, decided on 26.09.2025, wherein similar controversy has been decided. Paragraph nos.12 to 20 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant and are reproduced hereinafter:- "12. This Court in the case of Jay Bhagwan Kanodia Vs. The Commissioner and another decided on 26.07.2012 and Ram Singh Vs. 2 WRIC No. 35600 of 2024 State of U.P. and others decided on 28.03.2019 has held that fire arms licence can only be cancelled if it falls within sub Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act.

13. The provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act provides various conditions for variation/cancellation or suspension of the arms licence, which is reproduced as under:- "17.Variation, suspension and revocation of licences- 3.The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence- (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act ; or (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (c)if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it;or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence."

14. In the case of the Suresh Singh Yadav (supra) and Amar Singh (supra), this Court has specifically held that mere pendency of criminal cases or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for suspension or cancellation of firearm licence under Section 17 of the Act. The same view was also taken by the different Benches of this Court in the case of Ram Murti Madhukar (supra), Ram Karpal Singh (supra) and Ram Prasad (supra).

15. A licence may be cancelled, inter alia on the ground that it is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety' to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licensee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with 3 WRIC No. 35600 of 2024 security of the public peace or public safety. There should be something more than mere enmity. There should be some evidence of the provocative utterances of the licensee or of his suspicious movements or of his criminal designs and conspiracy in reinforcement of the evidence of enmity. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of facts and circumstances from which an inference of threat to public security or public peace may be deduced. The District Magistrate will have to take a decision on the facts of each case. But in the instant case there 'is nothing in his order to indicate that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Mere enmity is not sufficient.

16. The District Magistrate did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 17 at all. His order gives an impression of having been made in a mechanical manner. The cancellation of a licence destroys a valuable privilege of a free citizen of a free country. The District Magistrate ought to fairly consider the facts and circumstances of each case and should also bear in mind the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms that the law does not give them a free hand.

17. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the order impugned was passed by the licensing authorities cancelling the firearm license of the petitioner only on the ground that one criminal case is pending against the petitioner which is a complete violation of law laid down by this Court specially in the case of Suresh Singh Yadav & Amar Singh (supra) in which it is held that mere pendency of the criminal cases is not sufficient ground to cancel the firearm license.

18. In this view of the matter, the order dated 01.02.2026 passed by the respondent no.3-District Magistrate, Jaunpur under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.2-Commissioner Varanasi Division, Varanasi under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside.

19. The petition is allowed.

20. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur/respondent no.3 is directed to pass fresh order in the matter taking into consideration observations made 4 WRIC No. 35600 of 2024 herein above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."

5. In view of the aforesaid observations, it is clear that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for suspension or cancellation of firearm licence under Section 17 of the Act.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the respondent no.3 as also the order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the respondent no.2 are hereby quashed. Respondent no.3 is directed to pass a fresh order in respect of restoring arms licence of the petitioner, keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. October 17, 2025 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.) ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad