JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J.—Father of the petitioner possessed a licensed double barrel breach loading gun. After his death, the petitioner filed an application for grant of an arms licence. After completing the formalities, an arms license was issued to the petitioner and the gun of his father was transferred in his favour on such licence. Thereafter by an order dated 28-10-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Kannauj, Respondent No. 2, the arms licence of the petitioner was cancelled. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Magistrate was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur on 31-8-2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 28-10-2002 and 31-8-2004 passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner respectively, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri Jag Narayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. 3. The main ground for cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner is that in the year 1988 a criminal case was registered against him, of which he did not disclose in the application made by him for grant of the arms licence. For deciding this question what is pertinent to be seen is as to whether under law the petitioner was obliged to make such a disclosure about pendency of a criminal case against him. 4. Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) deals with grant of licence. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act reads as under : “(1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.” 5. The relevant rule with regard to this is Rule 51 of the Arms Rules, 1962 (for short ‘the Rules’). By the said rule it is provided that the application for grant of an arms licence shall be made on the prescribed form. Such form of application for grant of an arms licence is provided in Part A to Schedule III of the Rules which is termed as Form ‘A’. By the said rule it is provided that the application for grant of an arms licence shall be made on the prescribed form. Such form of application for grant of an arms licence is provided in Part A to Schedule III of the Rules which is termed as Form ‘A’. Column No. 9 of the said form provides as under : “(9) Whether the applicant has been— (a) convicted—if so, the offence(s), the sentence and date of sentence; (b) ordered to execute a bond under Chapter VIII of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for keeping the peace or for good behaviour—if so, when and for what period; (c) prohibited under the Arms Act, 1959, or any other law from having the arms/ammunition.” 6. From a perusal of the above it is clear that what is necessary for the applicant to disclose is as to whether he has been convicted in any criminal case, and if so, then he has to mention the offence, the sentence and the date of the sentence. Nowhere in the form is an applicant required to furnish the details of pendency of any criminal case against him. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that by not disclosing about the pendency of the criminal case the petitioner has suppressed factual information and his case would thus be covered under Rule 51-A of the Rules, which is quoted below : “(51-A) The applicant shall not suppress any factual information or furnish any false or wrong information in the application form.” 7. In my opinion, by not disclosing about the pendency of the criminal case the petitioner cannot be said to have furnished any false or wrong information nor can he be said to have suppressed any factual information in his application, as the same was not required to be furnished. If the same was a necessary information, the Form ‘A’ should have contained a clause requiring the applicant to furnish such information also. In the absence of the same it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed any information. 8. Even otherwise, in the said criminal case, admittedly the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Sessions Court on 19-4-2004, which is prior to the passing of the impugned order cancelling his arms licence, which was on 28-10-2002. In the absence of the same it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed any information. 8. Even otherwise, in the said criminal case, admittedly the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Sessions Court on 19-4-2004, which is prior to the passing of the impugned order cancelling his arms licence, which was on 28-10-2002. Such fact of his acquittal has also been noticed by the authorities concerned in the impugned orders. In the aforesaid circumstance, as in the facts of this case it is clear that the petitioner had not concealed any material information, the cancellation of his arms licence, on the basis of his not disclosing about the pendency of the criminal case at the time of making the application for grant of arms licence, cannot be justified. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 28.10.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Kannauj and the order dated 31-8-2004 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur deserve to be set aside and are accordingly quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost. Petition Allowed. ———