JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. - Sheo Prasad Singh the petitioner has filed this petition against the order of the District Magistrate cancelling his licence for a S.B.B.L. Gun and against the order passed by the Commissioner dismissing his appeal against the order of the D.M. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the D.M. cancelling the licence, does not give reasons as required by Section 17 of the Arms Act and also does not mention that he deemed it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel the licence. He has attacked the appellate order on the ground that it has just endorsed the order of the D.M. and has taken into consideration the confidential report. A further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reasons given in the order of the D.M. have gone beyond the show cause notice served on him before cancelling his licence. 3. The D.M. has in his order stated that the petitioner is an accused in a criminal case under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Sobha Singh who was one of the members of the party of Babu Singh. The murder was committed on December 1, 1966. Previous to the murder, proceedings under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. were going on between the parties of Babu Singh and the petitioner Sheo Prasad Singh who were the leaders of the two parties in village Khanna. There had earlier been a murder in this village on Aug. 13, 1966 of Suri Ahir. The D.M. has further mentioned in the order that due to these murders the atmosphere of the village was surcharged and there could be a possibility of further murders. Taking these circumstances into consideration the D.M. has cancelled the licence of the petitioner. 4. By Section 17 (5) of the Arms Act 1959 the D.M. is required to record in writing the reasons for taking action. The action that can be taken is given in Cl. (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. He has been given power to suspend or to revoke the licence and he has to give the reasons for suspending or revoking the licence as well as the reasons for holding that such action is necessary for security of the public peace or public safety. (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. He has been given power to suspend or to revoke the licence and he has to give the reasons for suspending or revoking the licence as well as the reasons for holding that such action is necessary for security of the public peace or public safety. Suspension is generally done for the limited period or for limited purpose while revocation is not for any particular period or purpose. According to the order of the D.M. it appears that the reasons which he took into consideration were of a temporary character, viz., the pendency of a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the petitioner and the order passed against him under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. Both these matters have not yet become final. Against the order under Section 107/117 an appeal was pending and so far as the charge under Section 302 was concerned there has yet been no conviction and the petitioner could not be deemed not to be innocent. The reasons given by the D.M. appear to be the reasons for suspending the licence for a particular period that is the period for which the petitioner was bound down under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. and the period till the trial under Section 302 lasted. However it is not necessary to finally decide the matter at this stage as the petitioner had the alternative remedy of appeal and the appellate court has passed the order superseding the order of the D.M. The entire matter has now to be looked into by the appellate authority. 5. The Commissioner Jhansi Division who decided the appeal does not appear to have applied his mind to the question whether the facts found against the petitioner and reasons given by the D.M. were reasons relevant for the suspension of the licence or for revocation of the same. The law contemplates a distinction between the reasons necessary for revocation of a licence and the suspension of a licence. It is for the authority concerned to decide whether the reasons are relevant and sufficient for revocation or for suspension of the licence. The case has, therefore, got to be remanded to the Commissioner Jhansi Division for a decision of the appeal afresh. 6. It is for the authority concerned to decide whether the reasons are relevant and sufficient for revocation or for suspension of the licence. The case has, therefore, got to be remanded to the Commissioner Jhansi Division for a decision of the appeal afresh. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice was not valid as it did not contain the second reason given by the D.M. namely the accusation of the petitioner for the offence of murder, has been disputed by the learned counsel for the State. The point is however not material. The fact that he was an accused of the murder of Shobha Singh was known to the petitioner and he has not stated his ignorance about the same nor has he contended that it was factually wrong. The petitioner was, therefore, not prejudiced by the omission of this fact from the show cause notice. 7. In the result the petition is allowed. The order of the Commissioner Jhansi Division dated April 17, 1967 passed under Section 18(1) of the Arms Act is set aside and he is directed to admit the appeal to its original number and decide the same in accordance with law. This, however, does not mean that the order passed by the D.M. revoking the licence will become inoperative till the appeal is decided. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.