Full Judgment
Anjanl Kumar, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 31.5.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur and the order dated 7.9.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ petition, respectively, under the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Arms Act. cancelling the licence of his fire-arm.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice under Section 17 of the Arms Act asking him to show cause as to why his fire arm licence may not be cancelled and in reply thereto, he filed his objection stating therein that he was never involved in criminal case and he has not misused his gun as is alleged in the show Cause notice. The further contention of the petitioner's counsel is that two cases under Crime Nos. 174 of 1993 and 178 of 1998 at police station, Bilaspur and Milak Khanam. respectively. District Rampur have been registered against six persons of the locality, including the petitioner and in which, he was falsely implicated by the police due to enmity. It is on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the petitioner has been served with the aforesaid show cause notice. A perusal of the order of revocation of the licence demonstrates that the petitioner is a person connected with the crime, referred to above, and therefore, he ts not the person with whom the fire arm should be retained in public interest. The appellate authority has also taken the same view, thus this writ petition.
3. 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 Ors., 1978 AWC 122, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above-mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
4. There is yet another reason that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case and at present there is neither any case pending, nor any conviction has been attributed to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure SA-I and II to the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to have the fire-arm licence. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges.
5. In this view of the matter, if there is nothing else, which may disentitle the petitioner for renewal of his fire-arm licence, the respondents are directed to renew the fire-arm licence of the petitioner. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The orders dated 31.5.1999 and 7.9.1999 (Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are quashed subject to the aforesaid directions.