Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner had two fire arm licence, one for DBBL Gun and the other for Rifle. Both these licence have been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Bareilly vide order dated 18.11.2008 and the appeal thereagainst was rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 6.1.2010. The Writ Petition No.7314 of 2010 has been filed in respect of Fire Arm Licence No.940 of 2003 for Rifle whereas Writ Petition No.7306 of 2010 pertains to Licence No.481 of 1999 for a DBBL Gun granted in favour of petitioner.
(2.) THE basic foundation for these orders is that a Criminal Case No.1050 of 2008, under Section 307, 506, 323, 427 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner which was pending and the police has submitted report that there is a possibility of misuse of fire arm by the petitioner. Both these orders are totally founded on the said criminal proceedings. Mere pendency of a criminal case would not justify cancellation of fire arm licence and a sheer apprehension of possibility of misuse without anything further would not satisfy the requirement of satisfaction of competent authority that the incumbent concerned can misuse his fire arm and would not also justify cancellation of fire arm license on sheer conjuncture. The satisfaction which has to be arrived at by the competent authority before exercising power under Section 17 for cancellation of fire arm licence must be arrived at by objective consideration. More over the pending criminal case has resulted in acquittal vide judgment dated 10.02.2011, a copy whereof has been filed alongwith rejoinder affidavit.
(3.) IN view thereof, I am of the opinion that orders impugned in this writ petition cannot sustain and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Collector to re -consider and pass a fresh order in the light of the above observations and the facts as are available on record alongwith the subsequent event as mentioned above.;