ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the licensing authority under the provisions of the Arms Act, whereby the licensing authority has cancelled the fire arm license of the petitioner and on appeal, the appellate authority met with the same fate and that is why this writ petition. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel representing the respondents. ( 3 ) A perusal of the orders passed by the licensing authority as well as by the appellate authority clearly demonstrate that since the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under section 307 IPC and sc/st Act, which has been registered as case crime no. 294 of 1996, his license has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, wherein he has annexed a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 7. 11. 2001 as Annexure SA-1, passed in Sessions Trial No. 677 of 1998, out of Case crime no. 294 of 1996. A bare reading of the aforesaid judgment would make it clear that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges, which have been levelled against him. In this view of the matter, now there is no material on the basis of which the petitioners fire arm licence may continue for revocation and also there is no ground in existence to continue for revocation and also there is no ground in existence to continue for revocation of the petitioners fire arm licence. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed. ( 4 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 27. 12. 1997 and 7. 7. 1999 passed by Respondents 2 and 1, respectively (annexure 2 and 1 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. In case the petitioners gun has been deposited pursuance to the cancellation of his licence, the same may be returned immediately to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner is entitled for renewal of his licence. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. .