Hon’ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.—The order dated 4.2.2009 whereby the fire-arm licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, and the order dated 30.11.2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner held a licence for D.B.B.L. Gun 9400-860. On the basis of an FIR dated 5.7.2007 lodged by one Smt. Prema Devi, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner as Case Crime No. 130 of 2007 under Sections 323, 294, 504, 506, 427 IPC at Police Station Paschim Sharira, District Kaushambi. On 22.6.2008, the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Kaushambi - the respondent No. 2 recommending revocation of fire-arm licence of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the report dated 22.6.2008 is extracted below:

^^vuqKkih jkepj.k iq= vo/kÁlkn feJ 23-6-2007 dks 4 cts 'kke dks ';keukjk;.k iq= lnkf'ko feJ fuoklh ljloka ds njokts ij tkdj mldh iRuh Áseknsoh dks xkyh xykSt djds tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsrs gq, idM+dj v'yhy gjdr fd;k vkSj ekjkihVk] ftldk eq-v-la-&130@07 /kkjk 323@294@504@506 @427 Hkk-n-fo- iathÑr gqvk gSA 'kL= dk nq:i;ksx djrk gS rFkk ng'kr QSyk;s gq, gS] 'kL= cuk jgk rks dksbZ laxhu ?kVuk,a djsxk vkSj ng'kr QSyk,xkA blfy, 'kL= dk cuk jguk tufgr esa ugha gSA**

3. On 21.7.2009 the respondent No. 2 passed an order under sub-section (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the ‘Act’) suspending the fire-arm licence of the petitioner till the disposal of the criminal case mentioned above and requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why his fire-arm licence be not cancelled. On 10.8.2008, the petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause notice refuting the allegations made against him. The respondent No. 2, thereafter passed the impugned order dated 4.2.2009, by means of which the fire-arm licence of the petitioner was cancelled/revoked. The relevant part of the said order is extracted below:

^^eSaus i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr vfHkys[kksa dk fof/kor voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ds i'pkr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡prk gw¡ dh foi{kh ,d ncax fdLe dk O;fDr gSA ftlds fo:) Fkkuk LFkkuh; esa eq-v-la- 130@07 /kkjk 323@294@504@506@427 vkbZ-ih-lh- esa vijk/k iathÑr gSA ,sls vkijkf/kd fdLe ds O;fDr ds ikl tufgr esa ykblsal j[kus ;ksX; ugha gSA foi{kh ds bl ÑR; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, 'kL= ykblsal j[kus ;ksX; ugha gSA foi{kh ds bl ÑR; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, 'kL= ykblsal dk cuk jguk tufgr] U;k;fgr ,oa 'kkafr O;oLFkk dh n`f"V ls mfpr ugha gSA**

4. The order dated 4.2.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 was assailed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad - the respondent No. 3. During the pendency of appeal, by judgment and order dated 27.6.2013 passed by Sri Lal Babu Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him in Case Crime No. 130 of 2007. On 30.11.2013, the respondent No. 3 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3 is extracted below:

^^vihydrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk rFkk fo}ku 'kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼QkStnkjh½ dh cgl dks lquk rFkk voj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa miyCèk vfHkys[kksa o lk{;ksa dk voyksdu ,oa v/;;u fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd iqfyl v/kh{kd dkS'kkEch fd vk[;k fnukad 22-6-2008 ds vk/kkj ij voj U;k;ky; }kjk uksfVl fuxZr dh x;hA vihydrkZ }kjk mDr uksfVl dk ÁR;qŸkj voj U;k;ky; ds le{k ÁLrqr fd;k x;kA vihydrkZ }kjk vius ÁR;qŸkj esa dgk x;k fd uksfVl esa of.kZr ?kVuk iw.kZr;k QthZ gS D;ksafd bl rjg fd dksbZ ?kVuk ugha gqbZ gSA vihydrkZ dks ijs'kku djus o mlds 'kL= ykblsal fujLr djk;s tkus gsrq >wBh ?kVuk dk lgkjk fy;k x;k gSA iqfyl v/kh{kd dh fjiksVZ esa Hkh 'kL= ds nq:i;ksx dk mYys[k ughs fd;k x;k gSA vihydrkZ }kjk xzke Á/kku ljloka] xzke Á/kku dqfe;kaoka rFkk xzke Á/kku vjkSyh rFkk xzke Á/kku vU/kkoka }kjk fuxZr i= Hkh ÁLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k fd vihydrkZ dk dHkh Hkh