MOHAN SHANTHANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) BY the impugned order dated 25-3-2004 vide Annexure-A, the District Magistrate, chitradurga, has cancelled the permit granted in favour of the petitioner to run Sri Siddeshwara video Theatre, Challakere. ( 2 ) THE records disclose that on 24-1-2004, at 7. 30 p. m. , the petitioner was allegedly exhibiting a non-certified film. The Police raided the said theatre and, during the course of investigation, ceased the C. D. Cassettes and V. C. D. players. The Police also registered Criminal Case No. 43/2004 under Section 292 of the IPC. On the report of the police Sub-Inspector of Challakere police Station, the District Magistrate cancelled the licence of the petitioner under Rule 9 of the karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Rules, 1984. ( 3 ) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order in question in illegal, inasmuch as, the same is passed contrary to the provisions under Section 17 (1) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964. The said Section reads thus: (1) "where the holder of a licence has been convicted of an offence under Section 16 of this Act, or Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Central Act 37 of 1952) or (Section 12 or has compounded an offence under Section 13) of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 (Karnataka Act 30 of 1958), the licensing, authority may, by an order in writing, revoke the licence or suspend it for such period as it may think fit. " ( 4 ) THE bare reading of the said Section makes it clear that, if the holder of the licence is convicted for the offence under Section 16 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, or under Section 7 of the Cinematograph Act or under other provisions mentioned therein, the licensing Authority may revoke or suspend the licence as it thinks fit in the case. Admittedly, the petitioner is being prosecuted and not yet convicted. Therefore, the Lincencing Authority does not get the jurisdiction either to suspend or revoke the licence. The said reasoning of mine is supported by the Judgment of this Court in the Case of Sri C. Shivanna Goud v. District magistrate, Raichur, 1980 (2) Kar. L. J. 392. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ Petition is allowed. The said reasoning of mine is supported by the Judgment of this Court in the Case of Sri C. Shivanna Goud v. District magistrate, Raichur, 1980 (2) Kar. L. J. 392. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-3-2004 vide annexure-A is quashed. However, it is made clear that, if the Licencing Authority has reason to believe that the petitioner is persisting Or continuing to commit illegal activities as mentioned in the police report, the Authority may initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with Section 16 (2) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964.