B.K. Narayana, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Respondents.

2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the Petitioner was granted a fire arm licence after due enquiry in the year 2001. A notice was issued to the Petitioner by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Respondent No. 3 on 21.6.2006 for showing cause as to why his arm licence be not cancelled on the ground of his involvement in Case Crime No. 243 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353 and 504, I.P.C. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 14.7.2006, whereafter the Respondent No. 3 by his order dated 4.8.2006, suspended the Petitioners fire arm licence illegally on the ground of Petitioners involvement in Case Crime No. 243 of 2006 and there being apprehension of misuse of his fire arm by the Petitioner. The said order further provided that the Petitioners fire arm licence shall stand automatically cancelled in the event of Petitioners conviction in the criminal case pending against him. Aggrieved from the order dated 4.8.2006, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Respondent No. 2 which was registered as Appeal No. 30 of 2007 and dismissed by him by his order dated 13.8.2007.

4. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure-3 to this writ petition) and the order dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure-2 to this writ petition) passed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 2, respectively.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a licence granted under the Arms Act, cannot be cancelled on the grounds of mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal trial and apprehension of misuse of fire arm by the licensee as mere involvement in a criminal case or apprehension of misuse of fire arm by a licensee cannot in any way affect public security or public interest. He further submitted that even in the first information report on the basis of which Case Crime No. 204 of 2005 was registered against the Petitioner there is no allegation of any use of his fire arm by the Petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner lastly submitted that the appellate authority also fell into same error as the licensing authority by dismissing the Petitioners appeal without properly appreciating the settled legal position on the issue and also the grounds on which the Petitioner had challenged the validity of the order of the licensing authority before him.

7. Learned standing counsel submitted that the Petitioners fire arm licence has been rightly cancelled after examining all the aspects of the matter and the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have examined the submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

9. The provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 17 of Arms Act provide various conditions for granting, cancelling or suspending the arms licence. For convenience, Sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 17 of Arms Act are reproduced as under:

17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.-

(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.

(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.

(3) The licensing authority may, by order in writing suspend a licence for such periods 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 if 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.

(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under Sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under Sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefore and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority if of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

10. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra v. District Magistrate, Basti and others XVI 1979 ACC (Sum), wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, held that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and hence an order cancelling or revoking a fire arm licence only on the ground of licensees involvement in a criminal case cannot be sustained.

11. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Satish Singh v. District Magistrate, Sultanpur 2009 (4) ADJ 33 (LB). Relevant paragraphs No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the said judgment read as under:

6. A plain reading of Section 17 indicates that the arms licence can be cancelled or suspended on the ground that the licensing authority deems it necessary for security of the public peace or the public safety. In the present case, while passing the impugned order, neither the District Magistrate nor the appellate authority has recorded the finding as to how and under what circumstance, the possession of arms licence by the Petitioner, is detrimental to the public peace or the public security and safety. Merely because criminal case is pending more so does not seem to attract the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act. To attract the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act with regard to public peace, security and safety it shall always be incumbent on the authorities to record a finding that how, under what circumstances and what manner, the possession of arms licence shall be detrimental to public peace, safety and security. In absence of such finding merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending without any mitigating circumstances with regard to endanger of public peace, safety and security, the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act, shall not satisfy.

7. Needless to say that right to life and liberty are guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the arms licences are granted for personal safety and security after due inquiry by the authorities in accordance with the provisions contained in Arms Act, 1959. The provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act with regard to suspension or cancellation of arms licence cannot be invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner. The provisions contained under Section 17 of the Arms Act should be construed strictly and not liberally. The conditions provided therein, should be satisfied by the authorities before proceeding ahead to cancel or suspend an arms licence.

We may take notice of the fact that for any reason whatsoever, the crime rate is raising day by day. The Government is not in a position to provide security to each and every person individually. Right to possess arms is statutory right but right to life and liberty is fundamental guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Corollary to it, it is citizens right to possess firearms for their personal safety to save their family from miscreants. It is often said that ordinarily in a civilised society, only civilised persons require arms licence for their safety and security and not the criminals. Of course, in case the Government feels that arms licence are abused for oblique motive or criminal activities, then appropriate measures may be adopted to check such malpractice. But arms licence should not be suspended in a routine manner mechanically, without application of mind and keeping in view the letter and spirit of Section 17 of the Arms Act.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Anr. 2004 (22) LCD 1643, (delivered by me), where, this Court relied upon earlier judgment in Habib v. State of U. P. 2002 ACC 783: 2002 (1) ACR 982, and in one another judgment in Fakir Chand v. Commissioner, Meerut Mandal, Meerut XI 2002 ACC 518, and it has been held that merely because criminal case is pending, it shall not create a ground for suspension or cancellation of arms licence in pursuance of powers conferred by Section 17 of the Arms Act. The authorities have to record finding based on material evidence with regard to breach of public peace, safety and security while cancelling the arms licence.

9. In the present case, in the F.I.R., the Petitioner was not named. In the incident concerned, various arms were being used for firing during the course of marriage ceremony and in the said firing the death was caused to one person though unfortunate but it was an accidental death. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the arms were used deliberately to kill someone. Though the Petitioner alleged that he was not involved in the said crime and he has accepted that the death took place on account of accidental firing done by some other person but assuming that on account of firing in marriage ceremony in case accidental death took place, it shall not amount to breach of public peace or tranquillity. Merely because, the Petitioner was allegedly involved in the criminal case, on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C., ordinarily, it does not seems to create a ground for suspension or cancellation of arms licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

12. The next question which arises for consideration is that whether the second ground on which the Petitioners fire arm licence has been cancelled, i.e., likelihood of misusing of fire arm by the Petitioner is at all tenable

13. This Court in Vishal Varshney v. State of U. P. and others 2009 (4) ADJ 86: 2009 (2) ACR 1634 [LQ/AllHC/2009/418] , while examining the aforesaid aspect held that cancellation of a fire arm licence merely on the ground that there was likelihood of misuse of fire arm is illegal as cancellation or revocation of licence granted under the Arms Act and can only be made on the grounds provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act. This Court having held in the case of Vishal Varshney (supra) that cancellation of the fire arm licence only on the ground of apprehension or likelihood of misuse of fire arm by the licensee is illegal, the suspension of the fire arm licence on the apprehension or likelihood of misuse also cannot be sustained.

14. A perusal of the order of Respondent No. 3 shows that the Petitioners fire arm licence has been suspended by the Respondent No. 3 on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case and apprehension of misuse of his fire arm by the Petitioner and there is no finding in the said order that possession of fire arm by the Petitioner shall be detrimental to public peace, safety and security.

15. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents does not dispute the settled legal position on the issue involved in this writ petition.

16. It is also not in dispute that the criminal case in which the Petitioner is involved is still pending and has not been decided.

17. Thus, in view of the settled law that a licence under the Arms Act cannot be suspended on the ground of mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of criminal trial or on the basis of mere apprehension of misuse of fire arm by the licensee, this Court is of the view that the cancellation of Petitioners fire arm licence by the Respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained as the same fails to satisfy the requirement of Section 17 of the Arms Act.

18. The order of the appellate authority declining to interfere with the order of the licensing authority is also liable to set aside for the same reasons as indicated hereinabove.

19. Thus, in view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.

20. The order dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure-3 to this writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure-2 to this writ petition) passed by the appellate authority, Respondent No. 2 are hereby quashed.

21. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to renew the Petitioners fire arm licence strictly in accordance with law within period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.