- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition was heard and allowed by me on 25th September, 2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is licensee of fire- arm, has challenged the order of the licensing authority/district Magistrate, Basti dated 9th April, 1986 (Annexure '1' to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner's fire-arm licence of DBBL Gun No. 68798 under Licence No. 489 was cancelled. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 10th August, 1992 by the appellate authority. The sole ground for cancellation of the fire-arm licence of the petitioner, was involvement of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 65/85 under Sections 147, 323 and 325 IPC which was subsequently converted into Sections 147, 148, 307, 336 and 504 IPC and it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1989. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has annexed the copy of the judgment passed in S. T. No. 214 of 1989, dated 20th December, 1994. A perusal of the judgment demonstrates that all the accused persons were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in the said sessions trial. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the law laid down by this Court including a recent decision, reported in 2002 (1) Judicial Interpretation on Crimes, page 501, Iftikhar Khan v. State of U. P. & Ors. , wherein this Court relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1978 AWC 122, Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others and 1972 ALJ 573, Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, has held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire-arm on this ground is to be set aside. In the present case also, the facts are almost similar. Perusal of the order dated 13-8-1997 and the order of the appellate authority dated 17-12-1997 (Annexure '5' and '7' to the writ petition) will demonstrate that on the basis of the material, i. e. , First Information Report of the case Crime No. 33/97, licence has been cancelled exercising power under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment referred to above, I see no reason to deviate from the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid case, particularly, in the circumstance when the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid sessions trial by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, judgment whereof is on record as Annexure '2' to the writ petition, this petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) THIS petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the licensing authority dated 9th April, 1985 (Annexure '1' to the writ petition) and that of the appellate authority dated 10th August, 1982 are quashed. The petitioner is entitled for restoration of his fire-arm licences. If the fire-arm has been deposited, the same may be returned to the petitioner forthwith. Petition allowed. .;