Mere pendency of a criminal case or apprehension of abuse of Arms Act, are not sufficient ground for passing of the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section 17 of the Act.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 14-3-1991 passed by District Magistrate, Sitapur, suspending the licence of the petitioners DBBL gun, during the pendency of the case crime No. 114/86 under Sections 147/148/149/307 of the I. P. C.

( 3 ) IT appears that licence of the petitioner was renewed for the period ending on 31-12-1986. A police report dated 31-12-84 was submitted against the petitioner, on the basis of which show-cause notice was issued to him by licencing authority, calling upon him to show-cause as to why licence of his DBBL gun be not cancelled. Petitioner, on receipt of the notice submitted his explanation. District Magistrate, thereafter, by his order dated 27-2-1985 suspended the licence of the petitioner for a period of one year. In the meantime, petitioner was acquitted in the case crime No. 214 of 1986, referred to above. On his acquittal in the aforesaid case, petitioner applied for renewal of his licence after depositing the renewal fee. On the application of the petitioner, report of the police and superintendent of police were sent for. Police submitted its report in favour of the petitioner. But, the Superintendent of Police reported that a case under Sections 147/148/307 of the I. P. C. was pending against the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, District Magistrate suspended the licence of the petitioner by impugned order dated 14-3-1991.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the impugned order of suspension passed by respondent No. 1 was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as, mere pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner was not sufficient ground for suspending the licence of the petitioner. It has been urged that respondent No. 1 did not record finding that suspension of the licence of petitioner was on account of public peace and safety. What has been stated in the order is that licence was being suspended in jan Hit (public interest), which is not one of the grounds for suspension/revocation of the licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act. It has further been urged that as the licence of the petitioner was renewed and was valid up to 31-12-1986, the District Magistrate should have applied his mind to the question of renewal, before passing any other order. The District Magistrate having completely ignored this aspect of the matter and acting arbitrarily passed the order of suspension. The order passed by District Magistrate was, therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned standing counsel supported the order passed by District Magistrate. It was urged that since the petitioner was involved in a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and is again prosecuted in case Crime No. 214/86 under Sections 147/148/149/307 of the I. P. C. , therefore, the licensing authority was right in suspending the licence of the petitioner.

( 6 ) I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31-12-1986. It has not been disputed that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in case Crime No. 214/86, and that the petitioner has deposited the fee for the renewal of licence. The District Magistrate ought to have considered the question of renewal of the licence of petitioner. The District Magistrate instead of considering the question of renewal of licence of the petitioner, relying upon the report of Superintendent of Police merely on the ground that a case Crime No. 214 of 1986 was pending against the petitioner, passed the order of suspension of the licence of petitioner. There was no question of suspension of licence as on the date the order was passed, petition