ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.05.2019. By the order under challenge, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the District Magistrate, Kutch, dated 21.08.2017, by which, the Magistrate had revoked the arms licence of the petitioner.

2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner possessed a twelve bore gun and a revolver. On account of registration of an FIR being CR.NO.56 of 2009 and 57/2009 under the provisions of Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the arms i.e. twelve bore gun and a revolver were confiscated from the petitioner and on 01.01.2010, the application for return of these arms was rejected by the authority and the licence was revoked. Aggrieved by the order of the revocation the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State. It was the case of the petitioner that he was operating a ‘Kasumbi News Channel’. His earnings are about Rs.2 to 3 lakhs per annum. That he therefore was in need of weapon and the revocation must be set aside.

2.1 The Appellate Authority by its order dated 13.04.2012 set aside the order of rejection and remanded the proceedings for the authorities to reconsider the same after obtaining a fresh police opinion. On 27.07.2016, the police opined that since the petitioner is running a local news channel, his case for licence being continued needs to be considered favorably. Based on this police opinion, the District Magistrate on 21.08.2017 on reconsideration of revocation and the opinion rendered by the police authorities found that a criminal complaint was registered against the petitioner under Sections 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and the case before the Competent Criminal Court was pending, it was not thought proper to restore the licence in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, it appears that by a judgment and order dated 20.12.2018, the petitioner was acquitted by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj. In the appeal therefore, it was the contention of the petitioner that now that the petitioner has been acquitted his licence ought to be reconsidered. The Appellate Authority on a consideration and having perused the judgment of the Criminal Court found that though it was an acquittal, he would not consider it as an acquittal ‘crystal clear’, as a result of the fact that the witnesses had turned hostile. Looking to the history therefore and considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the District Magistrate and rejected the request of the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

3. Ms.Sonal Vyas learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that reading of the judgment of the criminal Court would clearly indicate that it was an acquittal on merits and therefore if the obstacle that no arms can be possessed by the petitioner due to the criminal case was considered, now that the petitioner has been acquitted he was entitled to restoration of the arms licence.

3.1 Ms.Vyas would further submit that it was not for the Appellate Authority to sit over the judgment of the Criminal Court and assess the nature of evidence before it while considering the application for renewal.

3.2 Ms.Vyas would further submit that the petitioner did require an arms licence and weapons for self defense. In support of her submission that once there was an acquittal, the order of revocation of licence must be interfered with, she would rely on a decision of coordinate bench of this Court in case of Pratapbhai Suragbhai Varu v. State of Gujarat reported in 2006 (4) GLR 3031. She would press into service paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of the judgment to indicate that this Court in an almost identical case had found that once there was an acquittal, the petitioner would be entitled to renewal of licence.

4. Mr.Sanjay Udhwani learned AGP would support the order of the Magistrate as well as