The pendency of a criminal case alone cannot justify the revocation of an arms license; substantial evidence is necessary to demonstrate a threat to public safety.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order(s) dated 18.01.2023 passed by opposite part No.1/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal Gonda in Case No.00463/2021(Arjun Prasad Vs State, Computerized Case No.C202108000000463) under Section-18 of Indian ARMS ACT , 1959 (in short "Act, 1959") and order dated 18.03.2021 passed by opposite party No.2/District Magistrate, Baharaich, District-Bahraich in Case No.00484/2021 (State Versus Arjun Prasad, Computerized Case No.D202108150000484) under section-17 (3) of Act, 1959.

3. For the purpose of relief(s) sought by means of present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Ram Murti Madhukar vs. District Magistrate , Sitapur (1998(16) LCD-905) and Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner and Ors. decided on 07.02.2020 in Writ-C No.56378 of 2006, wherein it has been held that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section 17 of the Act.

4. He further says from the orders impugned, it is apparent that arms license of the petitioner has already been cancelled only on account of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner.

5. In Ram Murti Madhukar (supra), this Court has held in paragraph No.8, is quoted as under:-

"(8) It is also well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of Arms Act, are not sufficient ground for passing of the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 of the Act. A reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. D.M.Almora, AIR 1993 All 291"

6. This Court in the case of Ram Prasad (supra) has held as under. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgments i.e. 16, 22, 24, 32 and 36 are being quoted hereunder:-

"16. The matter which requires consideration is, whether on the ground of pendency of the criminal case the petitioner's fire arm licence could be cancelled and his appeal could be dismissed, notwithstanding his acquittal on 17.01.2003. It also requires consideration if the ground in the impugned orders that if the petitioner's fire arm licence remain with the petitioner, it would not be in the public interest and public security, are justified for cancellation and based on substantial material."

7. In Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1984 AWC 145 (FB), after noticing the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the ARMS ACT the Full Bench in paragraph 5 held as follows:

"A perusal of abovementioned provisions indicates that the licensing authority has been given the power to suspend or revoe an arms licence only if any of the conditions mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of Act exists." sub section (5) of Section 17 makes it obligatory upon the licensing authority to, while passing the order revoking/suspending an arms licence, record in writing the reasons therefore and to, on demand, furnish a brief statement thereof to the holder of the license unless it considers that it will not be in the public inte"it is true that in order to revoke/suspend an arms licence, the licensing authority has necessarily to come to the conclusion that the facts justifying revocation/suspension of licence mentioned in grounds (a) to (e) of section 17 exist" rest to do so."

In paragraph-9 it has been emphasised as under:-

"it is true that in order to revoke/suspend an arms licence,