IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                   CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.699 OF 2003

  NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)

Versus

UMESH KUMAR ..RESPONDENT (S)

O R D E R

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT.

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  

-2-

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  

-3-

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  

      -4-

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   

-5-

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.

                              .....................J.                                                                     ( Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT )             

   ......................j.

     ( G.S. SINGHVI )

New Delhi, June 19,2008.