JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was granted an arms licence in the year 2000. Thereafter on 12.6.2002 a First information Report under Section 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner. Another case under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. was also registered against the petitioner. On 7.6.2003, the respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why his arms licence should not be cancelled as two criminal cases have been registered against hum. The petitioner submitted his reply categorically stating that the petitioner has been acquitted in Case Crime No. 517 of 2002 under Section 307 I.P.C. by the judgment and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the "Sessions Judge, Moradabad. It was also stated that the case under Section 107/116 Cr. P.C. has also been dropped by order dated 17.12.2002. Copies of both the orders have been filed alongwith the writ petition. However, even after the acquittal of the petitioner, respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Moradabad cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner vide his order dated 11.3.2004. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad on 29.9.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 11.3.2004 and 29.9.2004 passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 respectively, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed, to which learned counsel for the petitioner slates that he does not require to file rejoinder affidavit. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself,
3. Although in the order passed in appeal, it hits been accepted that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the cases which were registered against him but it has been mentioned that the licence of the petitioner was rightly cancelled because the petitioner was named in the criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. and had also been arrested. Merely because a criminal case is registered against a person, his licence cannot be cancelled. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has ever misused his arms licence. Although, in the impugned orders it has been slated that the petitioner is likely to misuse his arms licence, but on such apprehensions the arms licence cannot be cancelled especially when in the past the petitioner has not been found to have misused his arms licence and also when he has been acquitted in the criminal case by the competent court. Such view has also been taken by this Court in the case of Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi 2003 (50) ALR 20
4. Accordingly, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. The order dated 11.3.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad as well as the order dated 29.9.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad are thus quashed. This writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.