Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Haji S. Kamal Akhtar Khan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Sri D.K. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. These two writ petitions raise similar issues; both have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. It is sufficient to note the facts of Writ Petition No. 47086 of 2007 for deciding both the writ petitions.

3. Both the writ petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 23rd December, 2004 passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the arm licence granted to the petitioners and the order dated 3rd February, 2007 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners.

4. Facts of the case, briefly noted are : the District Magistrate issued notice under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence be not cancelled on the ground that petitioner has been convicted in Criminal Case No. 30 of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment and fine. Notice further stated that in future the arm can be used causing serious incident, which may lead to breach of public safety. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice stating that against the judgment and order dated 12th November, 2003 the petitioner has filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and till the appeal is pending the order of the Fast Track Court dated 12th November, 2003 has no effect. It was stated in the reply that arm has not been used and the notice be discharged. The District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2004 cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has been convicted by the judgment and order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 12th November, 2003. The District Magistrate observed that petitioner being a convict it is not in the interest of public safety and public peace that licence be allowed to remain with the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal, which too has been dismissed.

5. The appellate authority noticed the submissions of the petitioner that against the judgment of the Fast Track Court dated 12th November, 2003 the appeal has been filed in the High Court. The appellate Court, however, observed that the District Magistrate having considered the above aspect, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, challenging the order, contended that conviction order having been stayed by the order of this Court dated 17th November, 2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5788 of 2003, the conviction does not survive and cannot be made basis for cancellation of the arm licence. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that arm having not been used in the offence in which the petitioners have been convicted, there is no justification for cancelling the arm licence.

7. Learned Standing Counsel refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that on conviction made by the criminal Court, the arm licence of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. Learned Standing Counsel submits that arms of the petitioners have been used in the incident and there is no error in cancellation of the arm licences. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the fact that petitioners have been released on bail does not wipe out the conviction and the said fact can very well be relied by the District Magistrate.

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

9. On the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, following issues arise for consideration in this writ petition :

(i) Whether conviction of a person having arm licence can be a ground for cancellation of arm licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959?

(ii) Whether grant of bail in appeal filed against the order of conviction makes the order of conviction inoper