Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. The present writ petition has been filed against the cancellation of licence of arms in a proceeding issued under section 17 of the Arms Act.
(2.) THE fact of the case is that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case having Crime No. 170 of 1998 under section 307, I.P.C. of Police Station Itiyathok. According to complainant of the said case, the petitioner had fired by his DBBL Gun on 28th December, 1998 on one Shri Ram Bahore with intention of kill him resulting serious gun injuries. The police had submitted a report that petitioner has used his fire arm in the said criminal case which may disturb the public peace and tranquillity. The District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 29th December, 2000 had arrived to the conclusion that the cancellation of petitioner's arm licence is necessary to maintain public peace and tranquillity. With intention to safeguard and public peace and security the District Magistrate had cancelled the arm. There is no finding recorded by the District Magistrate that on account of use of fire arm, a terror was committed in the vicinity or there was eminent danger to public peace or law and order. Only on the presumption, the licence has been cancelled. By the impugned order dated 29.12.2000, the District Magistrate had cancelled the fire arm of the petitioner. No other incident has been referred in the impugned order. The impugned order of the District Magistrate does not show that the petitioner is a habitual offender or he is an anti -social element or he is in habit to create terror in the vicinity in question.
(3.) AN appeal was preferred under section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner of the Division concerned. By the impugned order dated 26.2.2002, the Revisional Court without going into the merit of the case in detail in a mechanical manner dismissed the appeal. During the pendency of proceeding before the authorities below, the trial of the aforementioned criminal case was concluded and the petitioner was acquitted in, the Crime No. 470 of 1998 under section 307, I.P.C. The finding of the appellate authority is that the acquittal was on account of fact that witnesses were hostile. There is neither any material on record nor any finding has been given by the authorities below that witnesses were hostile on account of petitioners' persuasion or threat. Merely because witness were hostile without any other material relating to the threat etc., it cannot be presumed that the continuance of arms will breach the public peace or tranquillity.;