I Need Judgement Copy of Allahabad HC Permitting 3 Arms

[ruger_rugged]

On November 4, 2009 Hon. Justice Shishir Kumar of Allahabad High Court ruled that Licence for a additional firearm should not be denied to a person merely on the grounds that he/she already possess 1 weapon. The Petition was filed by Mr. Sunil Shukla whose application for additional weapon (for pistol) was rejected on the grounds that he was already in possession of 1 weapon a 12 Bore DBBL gun.

http://www.zeenews.com/news576187.html

This is a landmark judgement. I am looking for copy of this Judgement as soon as possible. Any any one help me with this.

Thanks

[sa_ali]

I think its time to compile all such judgments. These can be very handy for all the members and to the NAGRI cause.
I tried search on the court site, but its giving 502 error.

[ruger_rugged]

Actually I have an appointment with LA regarding this on Monday and therefore need this as soon as possible. A copy of judgement in hand will help to substantiate my claim for additional weapon.

Thanks

[Anand]

I looked for it online but to no avail .
Sorry,
Anand

[grewal]

Go to your city court , there is always a library maintained by the bar council of your city. There you can get the copy of that judgment from the " All India Reporter " Either from the printed edition or from the CD version . All India Reporter or for that matter usually known as AIR has all the judgments happening through all high courts or Supreme court. You can simply get the judgment or any other judgment from there.

-- Sat Oct 02, 2010 13:44 --

Wait a minuter, you address says that you are in US. Is this any kind of a prank or what

-- Sat Oct 02, 2010 13:51 --

I looked for it online but to no avail .
Sorry,
Anand

Anand judgments are always trusted if the source is genuine. And in India There are various agencies which print or distribute this data. AIR is one of them. And above all this is not free stuff and one has to pay for these. You can get judgments from the online sites maintained by publishing houses but you need to pay them first. That is why Advocates keep volumes and volumes of these Reporters for their personal use. And they are costly too.

[darashp]

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/il ... ec2002.pdf pls check in this,u will get,in this ruling.

[ruger_rugged]

Wait a minuter, you address says that you are in US. Is this any kind of a prank or what

Grewal Paji,
I am in Maharashtra and not in US presently. This is not a prank. I am in immediate need of this judgement.

Thanks,


-- Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:18 pm --

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/il ... ec2002.pdf pls check in this,u will get,in this ruling.

Thanks for trying but the link doesnot work.

[grewal]

Ruger what I had suggested is the only way you can have this judgment. They keep CD's of volumes of AIR reporter and within minutes you can get a laser print of the judgment.

[winnie_the_pooh]

The Allahabad HC order will not apply to the State of Maharashtra.

[ruger_rugged]

The Allahabad HC order will not apply to the State of Maharashtra.

Why not sir? Allahabad & Maharashtra are in the Republic of India. Does this mean that such cases will have to be fought in all the states individually or in Supreme Court? We have one arms act and therefore there cannot be more than one interpretation of the arms act. I my view the interpretation of the arms act by Allahabad HC should hold good for all states in Union of India.

[grewal]

The Allahabad HC order will not apply to the State of Maharashtra.

Only if the judgment has to be produced in court. But in case it is to be showed to any officer then he can consider if he like so. But otherwise Pooh is correct

[ruger_rugged]

The Allahabad HC order will not apply to the State of Maharashtra.

Only if the judgment has to be produced in court. But in case it is to be showed to any officer then he can consider if he like so. But otherwise Pooh is correct

Grewal Paji,
It is absurd and weird that we have to prove SAME thing in various High Courts. In short how many times we have to prove that TRUTH is TRUTH.

We need to nail these bureaucrats by getting some sound judgement from Hon. Supreme Court on this.

[goodboy_mentor]

I was trying to find the copy of judgment from the day it was posted by ruger_rugged. Tried all permutations/combinations using name of judge, advocate, petitioner, Arms Act as search string nothing yielded the said judgment for date 4.11.2009. Maybe the judgment date mentioned in news is incorrect.
The link is http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/e ... bSearch.do
I am attaching another orders below, maybe getting similar order from court may help.

[hhchoudhary]

-- Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:31 pm --

AFR
Court no. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58293 of 2008
Sunil Shukla, Advocate
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vivek Misra and the
learned Standing Counsel.
This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to consider and decide the application filed by
the petitioner for grant of licence of revolver/pistol. Time was granted to the
learned counsel for the respondents for filing counter affidavit. With the
counter affidavit a document dated 1.12.2008 has been field, which is an
order by which the application for grant of pistol licence has been rejected
on the ground that the petitioner is already having a DBBL 12 bore gun
licence which was granted to the petitioner in the year 2004. The ground
taken in the said order is that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact as to
what are the reasons for having more than one fire arms and why he needs
another licence of the pistol.
Sri Vivek Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under
the Act there is no bar to have more than one licence in case it is necessary.
Petitioner is having a huge property and, therefore, for the security for
himself, he wants to have a licence of revolver. A 12 bore gun cannot be
easily carried away from one place to another. The respondents have not
rejected the application on the ground of concealment of any fact. Even
nothing is mentioned against the petitioner to show that the petitioner has
ever misused the arm licence. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the order itself is bad and against the provisions of
law. He has relied upon a judgement of this Court reported in 1999 ACJ
2
Page 1439 Dr. Sardar Ahmad Khan Vs. District Magistrate, Kanpur
Nagar, Kanpur. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that a bare reading of Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Act
makes it clear that any person is entitled to acquire or possess three fire arms.
Section 3 of the Act does not provide that for acquiring a licence for a second
arm, the applicant has to disclose some special reason. In such circumstances,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been
passed only to reject the claim of the petitioner and that too without any
reason.
A counter affidavit has been filed. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it
has been stated that it is true that three arm licences can be granted to a person
under the Arms Act but before issuing the licence it is necessary to be seen the
actual need for the same and as the need of the petitioner was not found
genuine and correct, the order impugned has been passed rejecting the claim
of the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and have perused the
record. From the perusal of the Act it is clear that a person who is having arm
licence, can make another application and can acquire and possess three fire
arms and arm licences in view of Section 3 of the Act. Even the proviso
requires a person having more than three arms on the date of amendment of
the Act of 1983 which came into force, to surrender more than three arms.
Thus the acquiring and possessing of more than one arm is not prohibited. On
the other hand, it is permitted. From the perusal of Section 3 of the Act, it
appears that it does not provide that for acquiring a licence for the second
arm, the applicant has to disclose some special reason. In case the law does
not provide or prescribe, in that circumstances, the question is whether the
authorities below can reject the application filed by a person disclosing this
fact that he is having a licence of a particular arm. The application of other fire
arm made by the petitioner could have been rejected by the respondents on the
ground that the police report was not submitted in his favour. But this is not
3
the position in the present case. The police authorities have submitted a report
in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, as the order passed by the District
Magistrate does not disclose any reason for refusing the licence for possessing
the DBBL gun by the petitioner, the only reason assigned in the impugned
order is that the petitioner has not disclosed any special reason for acquiring
the second arm licence. If law does not prohibit the petitioner from obtaining
another arm licence, it could not have been refused by the respondents on the
ground that special reasons to be recorded were required to be intimated in the
application made by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid fact, the order
passed by the District Magistrate dated 1.12.2008 cannot be sustained.
In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the District
Magistrate, Annexure-2 to the amendment application dated 1.12.2008 is
hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application filed
by the petitioner for grant of revolver license strictly in accordance with law
and in view of the observations made above within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
No order is passed as to costs.
27.10.2009
V.Sri/-

WRIT - C No. - 58293 of 2008 at Allahabad : Sunil Shukla, Advocate Vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Date of Decision - 27/10/2009
Court Number - 7
Judgment Type - Final AFR
Coram - Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Petitioner's Counsels - Vivek Mishra
Respondent's Counsel - C.S.C.
Formatted Text - Download (Opens in new window)

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/e ... bSearch.do

select title in the title search by petationer name sunil shukla from date 04/09/2009 to 04/09/2010 ther you will get it

[ruger_rugged]

-- Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:31 pm --

AFR
Court no. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58293 of 2008
Sunil Shukla, Advocate
Vs.
State of U.P. and others


http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/e ... bSearch.do

select title in the title search by petationer name sunil sukla from date 04/09/2009 to 04/09/2010 ther you will get it

Thank You hhchoudhary,
I appreciate effort of all you guys out here. These judgement's definitely help me.

Thanks again