JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the cancellation of his fire-arm licence by the District Magistrate vide order dated 18.2.2015 and rejection of his appeal by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, vide order dated 18.2.2015 preferred against the order of cancellation, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued a fire-arm license of S.B.B.L. Gun No. 10075/93, License No. 185. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act at Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda. Thereafter, the fire-arm license of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate vide order dated 28.5.2009. Against the order dated 28.5.2009, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned Commissioner, who after setting aside the order dated 28.5.2009 remanded the matter to the District Magistrate for consideration afresh, and also directed to pass appropriate order after providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 24.4.2013, the District Magistrate, Gonda reiterated his earlier order of rejection without considering and dealing with the pleas as raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of cancellation of fire-arm licence is wholly erroneous and against the provisions of Arms Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the facts in its entirety and in utter disregard to the law as propounded by this Court in number of cases, namely, Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another, 2004(22) LCD 1643 and Rayees Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(20) LCD 913. 5. Concluding his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds which are mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act are not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner has not contravened any of the conditions as enumerated in the licence and as such the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal and legally not sustainable. 6. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, while refuting the allegations of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned orders were passed strictly in accordance with law and provisions of Arms Act and both the orders do not suffer from any infirmity. The licensing authority after considering the material facts on record has given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of arm license. 7. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and others; 1979 (16) ACC 6 (sum), wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib v. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, and Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another [supra] and other cases. 8. Mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis of cancelling the license. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a political person and was the Gram pradhan of the Village. Moreoso, in the criminal case, petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court and the judgment of acquittal was brought to the notice of the Appellate Court but the Appellate Authority ignored this vital aspect of the matter, which is a serious omission on his part. 9. The order passed by the District Magistrate cannot be upheld in absence of anything as contained in Section 17(3) of the Act. The Appellate Court has also committed an error in not considering the facts in its correct prospective and has also failed to appreciate the grounds mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act regarding revocation or for suspending a licence. It is well-settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arm is not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section 17 (3) of the Act. Here, as averred above, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case. It is well-settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arm is not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of license under Section 17 (3) of the Act. Here, as averred above, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be legally sustained. 10. Accordingly, the orders dated 18.2.2015 passed by the Commissioner and the order dated 24.4.2013 passed by the District Magistrate are hereby quashed. The licensing authority is directed to renew the fire-arm license of the petitioner, which was cancelled, within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition stands allowed in above terms.