I. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE present application has been moved by Raghunandan Singh and his brother Shri Pal Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of orders dated 13. 11. 1979 of the State Government, opposite-party no. 1, in exercise of its power under section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) revoking the licenses of the two applicants dated 3t. 1. 1971 and 10. 10. 1969 respectively with effect from 26. 4. 1979, in pursuance whereof they were taken into custody and lodged with Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh, district Farrukhabad, opposite-party no. ( 2 ) THE admitted facts appearing from the petition, the affidavits and supplementary-affidavits accompanying the same; counter-affidavits of Asharafi Lal Misra, Jailor, Central Jail Fatehgarh and of Sm. Srivastava, Upper Division Assistant in Homes (Jail)Section-31 U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow and the accompanied annexure are as follows ( 3 ) BOTH the petitioners were tried and convicted by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 1961 under sections 148/302/149 and section 302/34 I. P. C. It is not dictated that they were sentenced to life imprisonment. Their appeals No. 745 of 1963 and 746 of 1963 in this Court were dismissed on 25-9-1963 and their convictions and sentences were upheld. ( 4 ) SHEO Pal Singh, petitioner no. 2, was released on probation on 19. 10. 1969 on licence under the provisions of the Act. Similarly Raghunandan Singh, petitioner no. 1, was released on probation under the provisions of the said Act on licence on n. 1. 1971. Those licences were granted in Form D under rule 7 of the Rules made under the said Act. They are annexures C. A. 8 and C. A. 9 on the record. They contained 9 conditions to be observed by the licensee i. e. the petitioners. The relevant conditions (translated in English) are reproduced below: 11 (5) He shall not commit whether in part A States or Part B States any criminal offence punishable by any law for the time being in force in part A State or any part thereof. (6) He shall not in any way associate with persons known to be of bad character or lead dissolute or evil life for triple murder incident which took place on 25. 5. (6) He shall not in any way associate with persons known to be of bad character or lead dissolute or evil life for triple murder incident which took place on 25. 5. 1978 at about 5 P. M. in Bazar Bahadurpur P. S. Rajapur, First Information Report was lodged at the said police station at 7-30 P. M. In it the present two petitioners, who are enjoying freedom under the above mentioned licenses were specifically named along with a few - others to be the assailants causing deaths of the three murdered persons. A case was registered against them under sections 147, 148,307/149 and 302/149 I. P. C. ( 5 ) DISTRICT Magistrate, Farrukhabad in pursuance of rule 10 of the said Rules recommended to the State Government by this his letters dated 4. 4. 1979 (Annexures C. A. 5 and C. A. 6) to revoke the licenses of the two petitioners inasmuch as by report dated 3. 8. 1978 of the police ofpolice Station Rajapur it was learnt that a case under sections 146,148,149,302 and 307 I. P. C. had been registered against the two petitioners. ( 6 ) IT appears that Raghunandan Singh, petitioner - no. 1 along with few others were tried for the above mentioned offences in connection with triple murder in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1978 while Sheo Pal Sing, petitioner no. 2 was tried for the said offence in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1979. Both the trial were conducted as consolidated trials and decided by Shri B. B. Khare, III Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad on 21. 5. 1970 observing: the possibility was therefore not ruled out that the indiscriminate firing had been resorted to by unknown vagabond visiting the bazar which resulted in the death of three persons including Rajpal Singh and injuries to several others and it was probably for this reason that even the injured persons bad not been able to connect the accused persons with the crime. The possibility that the accused persons have only falsely been implicated in the crime by Matru Singh informant also gains some support the accused in any case are entitled to benefit of doubt and might be acquitted of the offence with which they have been charged. Both the petitioners and the other co-accused in the said trial were, therefore, acquitted on 21. 5. 1979 vide judgment (Annexure 3 to the petition ). Both the petitioners and the other co-accused in the said trial were, therefore, acquitted on 21. 5. 1979 vide judgment (Annexure 3 to the petition ). ( 7 ) THE District Magistrate, Farrukhabad through his letter dated 6. 6. 1979 (Annexure C. A. 7) in continuation of his earlier letters dated 4. 4. 1979, referred to above, forwarded the copy of the above judgment dated 21. 5. 1979 mentioning that the two petitioners had been acquitted of the charge against them and solicited orders from the State Government in connection with their licenses and their release. ( 8 ) THE State Government, opposite-party no. 1, however, by its two separate orders dated 13. 11. 1979 (Annexures 2 and 3 of the counter-affidavit of Shri. Ashrafi Lal Misra) revoked the licenses of the two petitioners with effect from 26. 4. 1979. Both the petitioners were thereafter lodged in Central Jail Fatehgarh. ( 9 ) THIS writ petition was very ably argued on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. S. N. Misra and Mr. Daya Shanker Misra and on behalf of the opposite-parties by Mr. Girdhar Malviya Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prem Prakash, Deputy Government Advocate. ( 10 ) AT the outset a preliminary point was raised on behalf of the opposite parties that the licence (Annexure C. A. 9) in favour of Sheo Pal Singh, petitioner no. 2, was valid upto 30. 3. 1982 and the licence (Annexure C. A. 8) in favour of Raghunandan Singh, Petitioner no. 1 was valid upto 3. 11. 1983. These dates were specifically mentioned therein as the expiry dates of those licenses unless previously revoked. It was argued that since the period of those licenses has expired since long then even if the present petition be allowed the petitioners cannot be released inasmuch as they were supposed to return to jail custody with effect from the respective dates of the expiry of their licenses as mentioned above as they had been sentenced to life imprisonment. ( 11 ) MR. ( 11 ) MR. Daya Shanker Misra contended that once a prisoner is released on licence under the Act, he is released for good, though subject to the conditions of the licence, and only be taken into custody if the licence is revoked and that too validly in accordance with the procedure laid down in that regard and that too earlier than the expiry of the date on which he would have been normally discharged from prison after due execution of the order of warrant authorizing his imprisonment. It is. therefore argued that if the licences of the two petitioners were not validly reverted then they were not expected to surrender to custody on the expiry of the respective dates mentioned in the licences. ( 12 ) IN this connection reference with advantage be made to the provisions of sections 2 to 4 of the act: 2 Power of Government to release by licence on conditions imposed by it. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, where a person is confined in prison under a sentence of imprisonment, and it appears to the State Government from his antecedents and his conduct in the prison that he is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life, if he is released from prison, the State Government may by licence permit him to be released on condition that he be placed under the supervision or authority of a Government officer or of a person professing the same religion as the prisoner, or such secular institution or such society belonging to the same religion as the prisoner as may be recognized by the State Government for the purpose, provided such other person, institution or society is willing to take charge of him. Explanation. The expression sentence of imprisonment in this section shall include imprisonment in default of payment of fine and imprisonment for failure to furnish security under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 3. Period which licence is to be in force. A licence granted under the provisions of section 2 shall be in force until the date on which the person released would in the execution of the order of warrant authorizing his imprisonment have been discharged from prison had he not been released on licence or until the licence is revoked, whichever is earlier. A licence granted under the provisions of section 2 shall be in force until the date on which the person released would in the execution of the order of warrant authorizing his imprisonment have been discharged from prison had he not been released on licence or until the licence is revoked, whichever is earlier. Period of release to be reckoned as imprisonment for computing period of sentence served. The period during which a person is absent from prison under the provisions of this Act on a licence which is in force shall be reckoned as part of the period of imprisonment to which he was sentenced, for the purpose of computing the period of his sentence and for the purpose of computing the amount of remission of sentence which might be awarded to him under any rules in force relating to such remissions. Reading together the above sections, it is obvious that once the State Government releases a prisoner on licence under said section 2, then the period of that licence (under the said section 3) shall last till the date on which the person released would in the execution of the order of warrant authorizing his imprisonment have been discharged from prison had he not been released on licence. Thus the period of release on licence is to coincide with such date on which the prisoner shall stand discharged after the execution of the order of warrant authorizing his imprisonment, Of course this period would be cut down if on some earlier point of time the licence stands validly revoked. Said section 4 also makes the things clear by providing to the effect that the period during which a person stayed out of the prison on said licence, it would be deemed as if the licences had undergone imprisonment for that period to be counted towards the execution of the order of warrant authorizing his imprisonment and also would earn remission of sentence which might be awarded to him under the rules in force relating to such remissions although he was out of prison under the said licence. We, therefore, hold that once the licence is granted by the State Government under section 2 of the said Act, it shall remain in force till such date which corresponds to the last date of his imprisonment. That is the basic rule. We, therefore, hold that once the licence is granted by the State Government under section 2 of the said Act, it shall remain in force till such date which corresponds to the last date of his imprisonment. That is the basic rule. Of course if the licence is revoked in between and that too validly then of course he may be taken into custody to complete his remaining sentence. ( 13 ) THE main point which now arises for decisions is as to whether the respective licenses of the two petitioners were vividly revoked or not. Section 6 of the Act runs as follows; 6. Power to revoke licence- (l) The State Government may at any time for reasons to be recorded in writing revoke a licence granted under the provisions of section 2 provided that no licence shall be revoked on the ground of the breach of a condition of the licence without giving an opportunity to the person concerned to represent his case before the District Magistrate of the district in which he is residing at the time. (2) An order of revocation passed under the provisions of sub-section (1) shall specify the date with effect from which the licence shall cease to be in force, and shall be served in such manner as the State Government may, by rule prescribe upon the person whose licence has been revoked. Rule 10 of the Rules made under the Act lays down the procedure for revocation of the said licence. Its sub-rules (1) to (4) are quoted as below: (1) The District Magistrate, on receiving information from the gurardian or any other source, of breach by the licensee of the conditions of the licence, shall cause a notice to be served on the licensee to show cause why his licence should not be revoked. If the licensee presents himself in response to the notice, then after hearing him personally, and if he does not present himself, then without hearing him, the District Magistrate shall consider whether or not to recommend to the State Government for the revocation of the prisoners licence and shall act accordingly. While making his recommendations to Government for revocation of the licence, the District Magistrate shall state the condition or conditions which, in his opinion, have been breached by the licensee and how they have been breached. While making his recommendations to Government for revocation of the licence, the District Magistrate shall state the condition or conditions which, in his opinion, have been breached by the licensee and how they have been breached. (2) In case the District Magistrate decides to recommend the revocation of the licence he may, at the same time if be considers that the licensee is unfit to be allowed 10 remain at large under the licence, order his arrest and detention in the prison pending the receipt of the orders of the State Government. (3) The State Government shall on receipt of the District Magistrates recommendation pass such orders as it may deem proper. (4) An order of revocation of licence shall be in Form E and shall be served upon the licensee if detained in prison by the Superintendent of the prison, and, if not detained in prison, by the officer in charge of police station. (5) (6)It shows that when the District Magistrate receives information of breach by the licensee of the condition of the licence, he has to serve the licensee with a show cause notice why his licence be not revoked. If the licence presents himself in response to the notice, then after hearing him personally, and if he does not present himself, then without hearing him the District Magistrate has to consider whether or not to recommend to the State Government the revocation of the prisoner. licence Further while making his recommendation to the State Government for revocation of the licence, the District Magistrate has to abide two things (1) he has to state the condition or conditions which, in his opinion, have been breached by the licensee; and (2) how they were breached. ( 14 ) THE letters recommending revocation of licences of the two petitioners dated 4. 4. 1979 (Annexures C. A. 5 and C. A. 6) do indicate that he had received information from report dated 3. 8. 1978 from Police Station Rajapur, district Farrukhabad that a case under sections 147, 148, 149,302 and 307 I. P. C. was registered against the petitioners. It further shows that the District Magistrate had served a show cause notice on the petitioners as required by rule 10 (1) of the said Rules. It further shows that the petitioners had presented themselves before the District Magistrate in response to those show cause notices on 16,2. It further shows that the District Magistrate had served a show cause notice on the petitioners as required by rule 10 (1) of the said Rules. It further shows that the petitioners had presented themselves before the District Magistrate in response to those show cause notices on 16,2. 1979 and he had given them a hearing. ( 15 ) ANNEXURES C. A. 3 and C. A. 4 are the statements of Raghunandan Singh and Sheo Pal Singh, petitioners, recorded before the District Magistrate on 16. 2. 1979, the date fixed for their appearance in the show cause notices (Annexures C. A. 1 and C. A. 2 ). ( 16 ) THE recommendations dated 4. 4. 1979 (Annexures C. A. 5 and C. A. 6) further mentioned that after hearing the petitioners, he considered the matter and did not find any force in their contention with the result he recommended revocation of their licences. ( 17 ) HOWEVER, we find that the District Magistrate while recommending the revocation of the licences of tile two petitioners failed to comply with the later part of rule 10 (1) which provides that while making his recommendations to the Government for revocation of the licence, the District Magistrate shall state the condition or conditions which, in his opinion, have been breached by the license and how they have been breached. ( 18 ) WE are of the opinion that as the letters of recommendation of the District Magistrate were silent on the above two points, it rendered the recommendations a nullity in as much as the recommendations failed to place before the State Government as to what condition or conditions of the licence were breached by the licensee concerned and also in what manner the said condition or conditions were breached by him. This would in our opinion have adverse effect when the State Government would come to bear its mind on the question as to whether the recommendations of the District Magistrate in that regard are to be accepted or not. In our opinion when the District Magistrate failed to place before the State Government proper material as envisaged in said rule 10 (1) in his recommendatory letters then the State Government was at a handicap to proceed with the matter by applying its own mind and to come to a proper final conclusion. In our opinion when the District Magistrate failed to place before the State Government proper material as envisaged in said rule 10 (1) in his recommendatory letters then the State Government was at a handicap to proceed with the matter by applying its own mind and to come to a proper final conclusion. We, at this state, are unable to appreciate as to what would have been the effect of the recommendatory letters if they had properly disclosed the materials required udder rule 10 (1 ). This in our view would vitiate the recommendations of the District Magistrate as well as the decision taken by the State Government on the basis of the said recommendations revoking the licences of the petitioners. ( 19 ) IT appears from paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit of S. M. Srivastava that the licences in question were revoked as the petitioners had committed the breach of condition 5 of the licence as contained in Form D as well as the breach of condition 6 thereof. ( 20 ) CONDITION 5 is breached when the licensee commits a criminal offence punishable by any law for the time being in force. It is the commission of the criminal offence by the licensee that matters. In other words the District Magistrate must recommend in clear words that the licensee has committed a particular criminal offence punishable by law for the time being in force and has thus committed breach of this condition. However, the letters of recommendation of the District Magistrate, referred to above, simply quote that report dated 3. 8. 1978 of the police of Police Station Rajapur intimates that a case under certain sections of I. P. C. has been registered against the petitioners. Mere registration of a case under certain sections of I. P. C. is quite different from saying that the person against whom the said case has been registered has really committed the Slid offence. Registration of a case is no proof of the commission of the offence for which the said case has been registered. In the present case, as seen above, the petitioner had been acquitted of those offence by the judgment (Annexure 3 to the petition) on 21. 5. 1979. This fact along with the copy of the judgment was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government by his letter dated 6. 6. 1979. In the present case, as seen above, the petitioner had been acquitted of those offence by the judgment (Annexure 3 to the petition) on 21. 5. 1979. This fact along with the copy of the judgment was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government by his letter dated 6. 6. 1979. The said judgment acquitted the petitioners of the said charges for which the above case had been registered against them. In view of the said acquittal, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the two petitioners had committed any offence for which a case had been registered against them. Obviously then condition no. 5 of the respective licences of the petitioners had not been breached. The argument advanced on behalf of the opposite-parties is that the petitioners were acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, so the State Government could still be justified in holding that the petitioners had committed breach of condition no. 5 and as such the, revocation orders did not suffer from any illegality. We fail to appreciate this argument. The acquittal even on the basis of benefit of doubt is as much a good acquittal as the acquittal on a clear finding of not guilty. Both have the same effect that the accused concerned has not committed the offence charged. We are, therefore, of the opinion that condition no. 5 of the respective licences of the two petitioners was never breached by the licence concerned. The State Government could not brush aside that acquittal and revoke the licences on the assumption that the licensees had committed offence in question merely because a case had been registered against them for those offences. ( 21 ) AS seen above, the State Government had also taken into account the breach of condition no. 6 of the said licences which provides that the licensee shall not in any way associate with persons known to be of bad character or lead dissolute or evil life. All that has been vouched in paragraph 12 of the coulter-affidavit of S. M. Srivastava in this regard is that; these Persons were also keeping associations with the persons known to be of bad character as they were being involved in the murder cases repeatedly, thus the breach of condition 6 of Form D also came to light. All that has been vouched in paragraph 12 of the coulter-affidavit of S. M. Srivastava in this regard is that; these Persons were also keeping associations with the persons known to be of bad character as they were being involved in the murder cases repeatedly, thus the breach of condition 6 of Form D also came to light. However, no material on the basis of which such a conclusion could be drawn has been placed on the record. The only incident on the basis of which the petitioners were said to be involved in murder case was the subject matter of trial in which the petitioners were acquitted as seen above. It means that they were not involved in the murder case, much less to say cases, and the question of their assoc ration with bad characters could not arise from that material alone. ( 22 ) BESIDES as seen above, the proviso to section 6 of the Act requires that no licence shall be revoked on the ground of the breach of a condition of the licence without giving an opportunity to the person concerned to represent his case before the District Magistrate of the district in which he is residing at the time. It, therefore, makes it obligatory that if breach of condition no. 6 was to be considered by the District Magistrate then the show cause notice which was served on the petitioners should have referred to the breach of that condition so that they could have an opportunity to represent their cases in that regard before the District Magistrate. The show cause notices in question are annexures, C. A. 1 and C. A. 2. Their perusal shows that the only matter about which the petitioners were required to show cause was that intimation was received about their involvement in a murder case about which they were specifically named in the Firstinformation Report. Obviously then not even a remote idea of breach of condition no. 6 was given in the said show cause notices. ( 23 ) IT is, therefore, clear that the revocation orders in question were passed by the State Government on materials which did not exist i. e. , there was no breach of condition nos. 5 and 6 of the licences concerned. Accordingly the impugned revocation orders are bad in law and must be struck down. ( 23 ) IT is, therefore, clear that the revocation orders in question were passed by the State Government on materials which did not exist i. e. , there was no breach of condition nos. 5 and 6 of the licences concerned. Accordingly the impugned revocation orders are bad in law and must be struck down. The opposite-parties, therefore, have no legal right to detain the petitioners in pursuance of the said revocation orders. ( 24 ) THE petition is allowed. The revocation orders dated 13. 11. 1979 passed by the State Government under section 6 of the U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (U. P. Act No. VIII of 1938) are hereby quashed. The opposite-parties are directed not to detain the petitioners in custody in pursuance of the aforesaid revocation orders and to release them forthwith, if not wanted in any other matter. Petition allowed. .