Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Khursheed Alam learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.2.2007 by which order the District Magistrate suspended the petitioner’s arm licence and directed him to deposit the same with the police station. By the same order a notice was also given to the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. The order of suspension was passed on the basis of report submitted by the In-charge Inspector, Kotwali, Circle Officer, Rudrapur and the Additional Superintendent of Police. The reason as noticed in the order for suspension was an incident which took place on 20.11.2006 in the afternoon at 2.30 P.M. at the time of inauguration of the Primary Pathshala situate at village Fatehpur. At time of inauguration the petitioner along with his group killed one Ram Pravesh Nishad by his licensed pistol. A criminal case under Section 302 I.P.C. was also registered against the petitioner. The District Magistrate recorded his satisfaction that from the act and behaviour of the petitioner on the above date it is clear that he is hot headed person with criminal tendency hence it is not in the interest of security of public to permit the arm licence to remain with such a person.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order raised following two submissions :

1. The arm licence of the petitioner cannot be suspended pending enquiry for cancellation of his arm licence.

2. The arm licence cannot be suspended merely on ground of pendency of a criminal case against a person.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on decisions of this Court reported in, 2001 (2) JIC 453 (All) Prabhu Dayal Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2001 (2) JIC 304 (All), Ranvir Singh v. District Judge Shrawasti and anothers, 2003 (1) JIC 33 (All) Satish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ; 2003 (1) JIC 302 (All) Dharam Vir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, in support of above submissions.

5. Learned Standing Counsel refuting the submissions of Counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Magistrate in the present case was fully justified in suspending the petitioner’s licence on being satisfied that the grounds exist for suspension within the meaning of Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959. He submits that the suspension is not on mere pendency of criminal case but on the basis of assessment of circumstances and events which led to registration of a criminal case. He has placed reliance on Full Bench judgements of this Court reported in 1984 A.W.C. 145, Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 1985 (22) A.C.C. 353, Kailash Nath and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 1995 All CJ 200, Rana Pratap Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 empowers the licensing authority to suspend the licence or revoke a licence by an order in writing. Section 17 sub-section (3) of the Arms Act is quoted as below :-

"17. (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence—

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

(d) if