JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 in case No.377/2019 (computerized case No.C201918000000377) as well as the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 in appeal no.225/2017 (Computerized Case No.D201718210225).

3. The crux of the matter is that the petitioner, who had firearms license bearing no.5010 was served with show cause notice dated 12.07.2012 on the ground that there was a first information report registered against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No.217 of 2012, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Nidhauli Kala, District-Etah. There was another first information report registered against the petitioner in Case Crime No.105/2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506,324 IPC, Police Station-Nidhauli Kala, District-Etah, wherein after investigation, final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. On 02.05.2017, the petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 12.07.2012 that he had been falsely implicated in the said case by the police party and, therefore, proceedings initiated for cancellation of firearms license should be dropped. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 directed the respondent no.5 to submit afresh report. The report has been submitted on 01.08.2017 by respondent no.5, on the basis of which, without considering the reply of the petitioner, firearms license of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 03.08.2018 on the ground that criminal case is pending against him. Appeal against the aforesaid order has also been rejected by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 02.08.2019. Hence the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the present criminal case crime no. 217 of 2012, there is no other case registered against the petitioner nor, he has ever been found to be guilty in criminal case at that point of time. He further submits that without considering the fact that during course of trial, son of the deceased has given statement before the trial court that his father has not been shot by the petitioner and the ballistic report also does not prove that the fire arms were used by the petitioner, the fire arms license has been cancelled. He further submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case, on the basis of which, fire arms license has been cancelled.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that merely because a criminal case is pending, the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act would not be attracted and in the present case, as the petitioner has already been acquitted in criminal case lodged against him, therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Ajay Jayawant Bhosale vs.The Commissioner of Police and Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No.594 of 2013 decided on 15.07.2016.

6. Percontra, the argument of learned Standing Counsel is that once the petitioner has been found to be implicated in criminal case, it was sufficient enough for the District Magistrate to record his satisfaction. However, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the factual position that the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments advanced across the bar and having perused the record, I find that the appellate authority had failed to consider the order and judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner in the said criminal case and even otherwise I find that except the criminal case in question in which petitioner stood acquitted, there is no such case registered against him and, therefore, no inference can be drawn that the petiti