Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh and J.N.Singh JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 6069 of 1998 for quashing of order dated 27.5.1996 passed by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad whereby his arm licence for a rifle bearing licence no. 276/82 was cancelled on the ground cf a criminal case bearing Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 148 of 1994 having been "instituted against writ petitioner and some others. Petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 21.5.1998 passed by Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. The Writ Petition was summarily dismissed by the order under appeal dated 9.2.2000. 3. It has been submitted before us that the writ petitioner has conducted himself in accordance with law since he obtained arms licence in the year 1982. Only on the ground of one solitary case filed by a co-villager with allegation that shot fired by the writ petitioner hit a part of his building should not have been made a basis for cancelling his arms licence. It has further been submitted that a perusal of the order under appeal would show that the Writ Court has accepted the allegation in the criminal case that petitioner used his rifle without any provocation as true whereas the trial of that allegation is still pending and is likely to the concluded very soon. 4. On going through the entire materials on record we find that there was material for the District Magistrate to presume that the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is only prima facie true at the present stage since charge-sheet was submitted against him and trial is proceeding. But the allegation cannot be finally accepted as true and there may be substance in the defence of the petitioner that the land alleged to be Gairmajarua land is his own land and he was being prevented from making construction on his own land. The materials do not warrant an inference that the petitioner is unworthy of holding arms licence unless the allegations are finally found true in course of the trial. 5. In view of aforesaid discussions we are of the view that the licensing authority has arrived at its conclusions without sufficient material and has erred in holding that petitioner is unfit to hold arms licence on such materials. 5. In view of aforesaid discussions we are of the view that the licensing authority has arrived at its conclusions without sufficient material and has erred in holding that petitioner is unfit to hold arms licence on such materials. The licensing authority was therefore, not justified in cancelling petitioners arms licence and for the present, till the conclusion of concerned criminal case, petitioners licence should be treated only to have been suspended by effect of the impugned order so that the petitioner may apply for revocation of the suspension order if he is acquitted in the criminal case lodged against him. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the criminal case is at the concluding stage and is likely to be concluded soon. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we accordingly allow this Writ Petition and set aside the order of licensing authority and the appellate authority which are under challenge. The matter is remitted back to the learned Collector, Jehanabad for passing a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above so that the arms licence of the petitioner be treated to be under suspension till conclusion of the criminal case against him. If petitioner is acquitted then he will be entitled to seek revocation of the suspension order and if he is convicted, then licensing authority may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.