Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the Criminal Writ Petition No.
207/2001 by Order dated 7.12.2001.
The background facts in nutshell are as under:-
The respondent had been granted license for a .315 Bore Rifle. The
Lt. Governor, Delhi upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of
Police (Licensing) Delhi, in Appeal in terms of Section 18 of the Arms Act,
1959 (In short the Act). The Deputy Commissioner had directed cancellation
of license on the ground that the respondent who was working as a Constable
was involved in criminal offence and therefore, it was not in the interest of
justice to
continue currency of the license granted to him. Therefore, it was cancelled.
The appeal before the Lt. Governor, as noted above, did not bring any relief to
the appellant. The High Court was moved thereafter.
The High Court noted factual background as follows:
The respondent's license was cancelled on the ground that that he
was found involved in case FIR No. 254/1991 for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
IPC) and Sections 25, 27 and 54 of the Arms Act. On the recommendation of
the Crime Branch, notice was issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Police
(Licensing) to show cause as to why the arms license should not be cancelled in
the interest of public safety and peace as he has rendered himself to be
unsuitable to hold license. The license was cancelled in exercise of power
conferred under Section 17(3) of the Act. The Lt. Governor of Delhi as noted
above dismissed the appeal. The High Court noted that the respondent was
deployed in Delhi Police and during his involvement in
the aforesaid crime was suspended and remained suspended till he was
acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. After the
acquittal, suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service on 19.1.2000. Before the High Court
the stand of the present respondent was that the grounds on which the licence
was cancelled did not exist any further and there was no reason as to why the
appeal should have been dismissed. It was pointed out by the High Court
that on acquittal the respondent was found to be fit enough to continue in his
post. When he was found to be so fit, there was no reason as to why he should
not have a license for a gun. A reference was also made to Clause 7 of Section
17 of the Act which provides that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or
otherwise, the suspension or revocation of the license by the court convicting
the holder of the license shall become void. According to the High Court, on
the same analogy, when the respondent's involvement was not found acceptable
the licence which was cancelled, ought to have been restored. Learned counsel
for the State submitted before the High Court that the State had already filed
an appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondent. The High Court was of
the view that filing of an appeal cannot have any effect on the judgment of the
acquittal. In case acquittal is set aside it was open to the authorities to take
necessary action.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the fact that
appeal was pending consideration, should have been given due weightage. Even
otherwise, a person serving in the Police Force and charged with serious offences should not be allowed to have a license. According to him grant of
license is discretionary and there is no right in that sense to have a license.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the
judgment of the High Court.
We find that while issuing notice this Court had directed stay of the
impugned order by Order 2.12.2002. Subsequently, leave was granted by
Order dated 2.5.2003 and the interim order was made absolute. In other
words, the High Court's Order is not operative as of now.
We are of the considered view that interest of justice would be best served if
the orders passed by this Court staying operation of the High Court's
order are
continued till the disposal of the Appeal by the High Court. We make it clear
by giving this direction, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the
case. However, we request the High Court to dispose of the Appeal, if pending,
as early as practicable preferably by the end of year 2008.
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
New Delhi, June 19,2008.