JUDGMENT 1. - By an application being I.A. No. 13883/08, the petitioner seeks to implead the State of Rajasthan as party respondent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the State of Rajasthan being a necessary party, the application is allowed and the State of Rajasthan is impleaded as party respondent. 2. By an another application being I.A. No. 13882/08, the petitioner seeks to take on record the document annexed with the application as Annex. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, since the document is relevant decision of criminal Court acquitting the petitioner, therefore, the application is allowed and the document annexed with the application as Annex. 7 is taken on record. 3. With the consent of learner: counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage. 4. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order Annex. 4 dated 6.7.2006 passed by respondent District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar as also the order Annex. 6, dated 25.6.2007 passed by respondent Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner on an appeal filed by the petitioner against the 1 order Annex. 4. 5. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was granted an Arms Licence No. 10/2001/SGNR for 12 bore gun by the respondent District Magistrate on 7.11.2001 vide Annex. 1. The Arms Licence was valid up to 3.11.2005. The petitioner applied for renewal of the Arms Licence under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short "the Arms Act" hereinafter) on 28.10.2005 much prior to the expiry of the period of validity of the Arms Licence vide Annex. 2. However, the petitioner was asked by the respondent District Magistrate to file an affidavit giving details of the cases pending against him The petitioner disclosed the case pending against him being for the offences under Sections 361 and 340 IPC, however, stated that the alleged pendency of the criminal case is not effecting the peace and tranquillity. By order Annex.4 dated 6.7.2006 the respondent District Magistrate declined to renew the Arms Licence issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent Divisional Commissioner which too came to be dismissed by order impugned dated 25.6.2007. Hence this writ petition. 6. By order Annex.4 dated 6.7.2006 the respondent District Magistrate declined to renew the Arms Licence issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent Divisional Commissioner which too came to be dismissed by order impugned dated 25.6.2007. Hence this writ petition. 6. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the petitioner did not submit the complete details of criminal cases registered against him. At the time of consideration of the application for renewal of the Arms Licence, criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. Apart from the cases referred in the order impugned, two other cases pertaining to the various offences of IPC were pending. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of the order dated 15.3.2008 acquitting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC.I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there being no criminal case pending against the petitioner as on date and even on the relevant date of passing the orders impugned, the criminal case which was pending against the petitioner is not indicating that the refusal to renew the Arms Licence is necessary for security of the public peace or public safety. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Khem Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 907 wherein this Court held that Licensing Authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the licence. A licence can be revoked u/s. 17(3)(b) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed. A licence can be revoked u/s. 17(3)(b) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on a decision of this Court in Saheb Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCW No. 387/2008 decided on 12.5.2008 wherein a similar view as taken by this Court. 9. Learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the petitioner has been acquitted but at the relevant time of passing order, there was a criminal case registered against the petitioner and therefore, the respondents were justified in refusing to renew the arms licence. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by counsel for the parties. 11. Section 17 of the Arms Act deals with variation, suspension and revocation of the licences. Sub-section (7) of Section 17 of the Arms Act provides that a Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence, provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. Thus, from this provision it is clear that even if the holder of Arms Licence is involved in a criminal case that resulted in conviction and on an appeal ultimately if the conviction is set aside, then the suspension/revocation of the arms licence becomes void. 12. In the instant case, since the gun in question has not been used or involved in. the commission of the alleged offences, which ultimately have resulted in acquittal and therefore, there being no material indicative of the fact that allowing the petitioner to keep the gun necessarily would involve public peace or public safety. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned Annex. 4 dated 6.7.2006 as also the order Annex. 6 dated 25.6.2007 are set aside and quashed and the respondent District Magistrate, Sriganganagar is directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the Arms Licence in accordance with law. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned Annex. 4 dated 6.7.2006 as also the order Annex. 6 dated 25.6.2007 are set aside and quashed and the respondent District Magistrate, Sriganganagar is directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the Arms Licence in accordance with law. Stay petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******