RAJIV SHARMA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the order impugned passed by the Licensing Authority whereby the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled inter-alia on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him and is still pending adjudication against which an appeal was filed, that too was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(2.) PLEADINGS were exchanged between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's arms-license has been cancelled on account of pendency of the trial. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after trial, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him and as such the petitioner's arms' license may be restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Ram Kripal Singh Versus Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others [2006(24) LCD 114], Virendra Pal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others [reported in 2006(24) LCD 266] and Sahab Singh Versus Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra and others [2006(24) LCD 374] in which it has been held that merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the licence cannot be cancelled nor the licence can be placed under suspension pending enquiry and the orders impugned deserve to be quashed.
(3.) IT is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17(3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a aground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Versus The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Versus Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Versus State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi Versus Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another.;