Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.2.1994 passed by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in Arms Case No. 1 of 1993 whereby the arms licence of the petitioners have been cancelled. Further prayer made by the petitioners is for quashing the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner in Arms Appeal No. 160 of 1993-94 whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioners hold arms licences and on the basis of a report given by one Harendra Baitha, Mairwa (Jiradei) P.S. Case No. 69/91 was registered against unknown under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The incident related to causing injury by fire arms in the marriage party. The police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet under Section 286 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and the petitioners were ultimately put on trial. However, by judgment dated 5th of April, 1994 passed in G.R. Case No. 1217 of 1991 (Trial No. 658 of 1994), they were acquitted. However, even before the acquittal of the petitioners, a proceeding for cancellation of arms licence was initiated on the ground that they had used their guns in the Barat and in that, one person sustained injury. The District Magistrate, by the impugned order, directed for cancellation of the licences which has been affirmed by the Commissioner. 3. Mr. Giri appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as the petitioners have been acquitted, their licences deserve to be restored and the orders cancelling the same are fit to be quashed. l do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Giri. Petitioners licences have not been cancelled on account of their conviction and as such, their acquittal in the criminal case ipso facto shall not result into setting aside the order cancelling their licences. 4. Mr. Giri then submits that the acquittal of the petitioners in the criminal case is a relevant factor and the Commissioner although in the impugned order had taken note of that fact, but the effect thereof has not been considered and as such, his order deserves to be quashed and the matter requires to be remitted back to him for reconsideration. 5. Junior Counsel to Govt. 5. Junior Counsel to Govt. Pleader IX, however, submits that in the facts of the present case, the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal. 6. It is well settled that acquittal of a person in a criminal case is a relevant factor which may not be decisive but the authority empowered to take action is required to consider the same. As stated earlier, the Commissioner has taken note of the fact of acquittal of the petitioners but has not expressed his opinion in regard to the effect thereof. This, in my opinion, renders his order illegal which cannot be allowed to stand. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the Commissioner within one month from today. In view of the fact that this matter is very old, the Commissioner shall make endeavour to dispose of the same within three months from the date of their appearance before him. 8. In the result, application is partly allowed, the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner in Arms Appeal No. 160 of 1993-94 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to him for reconsideration in accordance with law bearing in mind the observation aforesaid.