JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24.12.1997 and 5.2.1999. Annexures-5 and 8 to the writ petition, respectively, passed by the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority cancelling the petitioner's fire arm licence on the ground that the petitioner is involved in 11 criminal cases, the details of which have been given in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted or the proceedings have been dropped in 9 cases out of total 11 cases. It is further submitted that in remaining two cases. i.e., Case Crime No. 135 of 1993 (S.T. No. 202 of 1993). under Sections 307/504/506 and 3(i)10 S.C./S.T. Act and Case Crime No. 70 of 1989 (S.T. No. 125 of 1991) under Sections 307/34 and 506. I.P.C., petitioner has also been acquitted vide orders dated 14.1.1999 and 13.4.2000, passed by learned courts below, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 and SA-2 to the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Krishna Autar v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and Anr. 1990 AWC 1458, in which learned single Judge relying upon the earlier decisions of Division Bench of this Court in Udaiveer Singh v. District Magistrate, Farrukhabad and Anr., 1981 AWC 237 and Ram Bodh Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1985 AWC 40, has held that where the initiation of a criminal case and that too of serious nature is made the basis of cancellation/suspension of arms licence and the licence holder gets an acquittal, the very foundation of the action of the cancellation would be treated as non-existing. Therefore, unless there is some other report or material, the only ground of initiation of the said criminal case against the petitioner cannot sustain an order of revocation of the arms licence.
3. In this view of the matter and also on the facts and circumstances stated above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The orders dated 24.12.1997 and 5.2.1999. Annexures-5 and 8 to the writ petition, passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 1 are hereby quashed. However, parties shall bear their own costs.