S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 30th July, 1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital, whereby the District Magistrate cancelled the firearm licence granted to the petitioner, vide licence No. 428 R -78 -D. M.N.T.L. for keeping S.B.B.L. gun. The aforesaid order of the District, Magistrate was taken up in appeal before the Commission, Kumaon Division Nainital, who affirmed the order of the District Magistrate and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 3 -6 -1985. A brief narration of the facts on record would facilitate the understanding of the controversy involved in the case. The proceeding for cancellation of petitioner's firearm licence traces its origin to a police report dated 14 -12 -1983 in which a reference has been made to an incident having taken place on 12 -12 -1983, on the basis of which a non -cognizable report No. 330/83 was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station, Rudrapur, in the District of Nainital under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. At the fag end of the report, it was opined by the police that retention of firearm by the petitioner was fraught with danger to the public interest inasmuch as the petitioner had extended threats to the complainant and several others with life and property as a result of which it was reported by the police that the petitioner was not a desirable person and for reasons as disclosed in the report, the police commended to the licensing authority to cancel the petitioner's licence. In its report, the police also adverted to the proceedings under Sections 107/116, Cr.P.C. which had been launched against the petitioner and in reference thereto the police reported that there was an apprehension of breach of peace.
(2.) A glance through the record also goes to show that the police had subsequently submitted a report dated 2 -3 -1984 stating therein that the dispute under Sections 107/116, Cr.P.C. as a result of which there was an apprehension of breach, had terminated on the basis of a compromise and in this view of the matter, the earlier report submitted by the police stands over -shadowed by the present report in which the police did not recommend the case for cancellation of petitioner's firearm license. Upon a conspectus of the facts and circumstances in entirety, what I feel is that the recent/subsequent report of the police did not receive attention and consideration of the District Magistrate in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to hold the licence. The Commissioner in his order dated 3 -6 -1985, has wrongly affirmed that the report dated 2 -3 -1984 submitted by the police subsequent to its earlier report, was considered by the District Magistrate while passing the order of cancellation the petitioner's firearm licence. The earlier report vis -a -vis the subsequent report, on the basis of which the proceedings for cancellation had been embarked upon, loses its efficacy and subsequent report being relevant, the question as to whether the cancellation of licence was imperative, withers away. But the District Magistrate does not appear to have applied his mind to this relevant material and proceeded to cancel the petitioner's firearm licence quite illegally. There has been nothing on record which may reflect upon the petitioner's antecedents or it may be inferred that he was a man of desperate character. There remains only single incident on the basis of which a non -cognizable report was lodged at the Police Station and in so far as sufficiency of grounds is concerned in my opinion, the single incident aforesaid cannot from the valid basis for the formation of the opinion as to whether the retention of the fire -arm licence of the petitioner was detrimental to public security and public peace within the meaning of Section 17 of the Arms Act. The fact that the proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. had terminated in a compromise before the order cancelling the firearm licence had been passed, was a fact worthy of being taken into consideration while cancelling the firearm licence granted to the petitioner. By any stretch of imagination, as the record reveals, the District Magistrate does not appear to have taken into consideration the said fact. As such the order passed by the District Magistrate is vitiated by error of law. In the back -drop of the facts of the case, it would be useful to observe that the object and purpose of grant of firearm's licence is to ensure security of the life and property of the holder of the licence. Before cancelling the licence, the licensing authority is under a duty and obligation to advert to the relevant facts and consider the same. There is no finding in terms of the requirements of Clauses (a) to (e) sub -section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act which alone could have armed the licensing authority with the power to cancel the licence of the petitioner. It is nobody's case that Clauses (a), (c), (d) or (e) were attracted in the facts of the present case. The order could have been sustainable on the grounds of compliance with the requirements of Clause (b) of sub -section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, but in the absence of a finding that the cancellation of firearm licence was necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety, the order of cancellation cannot be sustained in law. The appellate order passed by the Commissioner also suffers from the same taint as the order of the District Magistrate wears. In the result, for the reasons stated supra, the petition succeeds and is allowed and the orders dated 30 -7 -1984 and 3 -6 -1985 passed by the respondents are quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the licence and the firearm in question to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.;