ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Heard Shri R. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing judgment and order dated 28-6-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Hamirpur canceling the fire arm licence of the petitioner and order dated 4-7-2003 passed by Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. A notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence be not cancelled. Notice stated that petitioner is a named accused in case crime No. 18/99 under Sections 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Notice also stated that petitioner and his family members are persons of criminal nature and petitioner has obtained licence by concealing facts. Petitioner filed his objection to the said notice denying the allegations. Petitioner in his reply stated that petitioners two real brothers have been murdered regarding which a case under Section 302 is pending against the accused. In reply it was further stated that the petitioner is unable to protect his life and property and to prosecute the cases pertaining to murder of his brothers. The reply further stated that considering the above facts the arm licence was granted to the petitioner and the enemies of the petitioner have falsely implicated the petitioner in case crime No. 18/99 under Section 307, IPC and the licenced arm of the petitioners maternal uncle has been shown with the petitioner, whereas said maternal uncle Shri Panna Lal had come to Village to participate in a marriage. The Court has granted bail to the petitioner and returned the arm licence of Panna Lal to him. The District Magistrate by order dated 28-6-2002 cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner. The District Magistrate in the order stated that the cancellation proceedings have been initiated on the basis of criminal case No. 18/99 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The District Magistrate observed that no evidence has been given by the petitioner that he been acquitted in the case and the said case is still pending. The District Magistrate in the order stated that the cancellation proceedings have been initiated on the basis of criminal case No. 18/99 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The District Magistrate observed that no evidence has been given by the petitioner that he been acquitted in the case and the said case is still pending. The District Magistrate further observed that by concealing all these facts, the licence was obtained on 19-5- 1999. Against the order of the District Magistrate canceling the licence, petitioner filed an appeal which appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner on 4-7-2003. The Commissioner also observed that the case No. 18 of 99 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act is pending against the petitioner and the arm of another person was recovered from the petitioner. The Commissioner refused to interfere in the order. Both the above orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. During pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case under Section 307, IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act by the judgment dated 2-6-2004 of Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur. Copy of the judgment of Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur has been filed as S. A.-I to the supplementary affidavit. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that basis of the cancellation of the licence was criminal, case No. 18/99 and the petitioner having been acquitted in the said case, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. The Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in the 2002 A. Cr. R. 982, Habib v. State of U. P. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner further contended that no facts were concealed by the petitioner in his application for arm licence. Petitioners Counsel contended that application for arm licence was given on 7-10-1998 and no facts were concealed there in. The First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 21-3-1999 on which criminal case No. 18/99 was registered. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner further contended that no facts were concealed by the petitioner in his application for arm licence. Petitioners Counsel contended that application for arm licence was given on 7-10-1998 and no facts were concealed there in. The First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 21-3-1999 on which criminal case No. 18/99 was registered. 6. The learned standing Counsel replying the submission of the petitioner contended that the order impugned are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in this writ petition and on the basis of acquitted of the petitioner in the criminal case, it is open for the petitioner to make an application before the Licensing Authority for renewal of licence. 7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 8. The District Magistrate has canceled the arm licence of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is involved in the criminal case and the petitioner can misuse the arm in future. The District Magistrate further observed that petitioner has obtained the arm licence concealing the criminal history, hence, the notice of cancellation is liable to be approved canceling the arm licence. 9. The basis for initiating proceedings for cancellation of arm licence is Case No. 18 of 1999 under Section 307 and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has been acquitted by the judgment of the first Additional Session Judge, Hamirpur vide its judgment dated 2-6-2004 during pendency of the writ petition in Session Trial No. 59 of 2003. The acquittal having taken place during pendency of this writ petition, this Court can look into the said fact and consider the same. 10. The submission of the learned standing Counsel that petitioner should go and make application before the Licensing Authority on the basis of his acquittal dated 2-6-2004 cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. When the acquittal has taken place during pendency of the writ petition, it is well settled that this Court can take into consideration subsequent fact in the writ petition which are relevant fact and have bearing on the issue. The cancellation of the arm licence having been made on the basis of the same criminal case against the petitioner which resulted in acquittal, the judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (1) Cr. R. 982, do support the contention of Counsel for the petitioner. 11. The cancellation of the arm licence having been made on the basis of the same criminal case against the petitioner which resulted in acquittal, the judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (1) Cr. R. 982, do support the contention of Counsel for the petitioner. 11. The petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case, the basis of the order of the District Magistrate is knocked out. Another reason given by District Magistrate for canceling the arm licence is that the petitioner has concealed criminal history which reason is also not correct. It is true that arm licence can be cancelled under Section 17 (3) (c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other persons on his behalf at the time of applying for it. Section 17 (3) (c) is quoted below : "if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other persons on his behalf at the time of applying for it. " 12. In the present it has been stated in paragraph-3 of the writ petition that petitioner made an application for arm licence on 7-10-1998, the said fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit filed by Shashindra Prasad Shukla, Station Officer, Police Station Majhgawan District Hamirpur. The First Information Report against the petitioner under Sections 307 and 25 Arms Act was lodged against the petitioner on 21-3-1999 i. e. subsequent to petitioner making the application. The application of the petitioner for grant of arm licence being earlier in point of time it cannot be said that petitioner concealed the said fact. No grounds existed within meaning of Section 17 (3) (c) in the present case for canceling the Arm Licence of the petitioner. The appellate authority has refused to interfere with the order of District Magistrate on the ground that against the petitioner case under Sections 307 and 25 Arms Act is pending and the petitioner was found in possession of arm of another person. The petitioner having acquitted in the above criminal case, the basis of the order is knocked out. 13. The appellate authority has refused to interfere with the order of District Magistrate on the ground that against the petitioner case under Sections 307 and 25 Arms Act is pending and the petitioner was found in possession of arm of another person. The petitioner having acquitted in the above criminal case, the basis of the order is knocked out. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, order of District Magistrate dated 28-6-2002 and order of the appellate authority dated 4-7-2003 cannot be sustained and are here by set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The parties shall bear their own cost. Petition allowed. .