JUDGMENT : Shabihul Hasnain, J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel. 2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 3.4.2013 passed by District Magistrate, District Barabanki, by which petitioner's arms' licenses have been revoked under Section 17 (3) of Arms Act in Case No.70/29 (2013) under Section 17 (3) of Arms Act (State Vs. Maskoor), police station Fatehpur, District Barabanki. Petitioner has also challenged the appellate order of Commissioner, Faizabad Division dated 9.4.2014. Petitioner submits that he is a law abiding citizen and was ex-chairman of Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki and his wife Smt. Reshma is present Chairman of the same Tehsil. Petitioner's father and brother are continuously Chairman of Tehsil Fatehpur since 1951. It has also been pleaded that arms' licences are found necessary for protection of his life and personal liberty, hence, licences were issued. 3. The licences have been cancelled on two grounds; firstly that there was Case Crime No.294/2008, under Sections- 306/406/506 IPC. Petitioner was convicted by the trial court and was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. one lakh. Petitioner submits that aforesaid sections do not involve the use of fire arm at all. The said Sections are quoted herein below:- "306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 506. 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 4. It has been argued by Sri Ravi Singh that criminal appeal is pending before High Court against conviction order passed by trial court. Petitioner has been granted bail and the appeal is still pending. He has further argued that appeal is continuation of trial and he has all hopes of getting acquitted in the criminal appeal. 5. He has submitted that even for arguments' sake if his appeal is dismissed and his conviction stands it cannot be said that his license will become a threat to public peace and security in general. Since all the sections of I.P.C. in which he has been tried and convicted by the trial court do not envisage any kind of use of fire arm. The suicide note which was recovered from the body of the deceased uses the word 'uttpeedit'. Its translation in English will mean "exploitation". Sri Ravi Singh has forcefully argued that exploitation does not necessarily denote the use of fire arms or the threat given on the basis of fire arms. Exploitation can be social, economic or political. We are unaware of the nature of exploitation alleged by the deceased. In any case, none of the conditions of Section 17 (3) of the Act have been violated by the petitioner and the arms license could not have been revoked under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act. 6. Exploitation can be social, economic or political. We are unaware of the nature of exploitation alleged by the deceased. In any case, none of the conditions of Section 17 (3) of the Act have been violated by the petitioner and the arms license could not have been revoked under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act. 6. Impugned order also says that the petitioner refused to take notice and he did not appear in the court, hence, it appears that he is not a law abiding citizen. This Court wonders whether absence of appearance/notice can entitle the licensing authority to cancel the licences under Section 17 (3) of the said Act. By reading the impugned order and the counter affidavit the Court is not convinced that there was enough matterial before the licensing authority to come to the conclusion that condition of Section 17 (3) can be invoked against the petitioner and the arms' licenses can be cancelled. 7. The Court finds that the orders order dated 3.4.2013 passed by District Magistrate, District Barabanki and the appellate order dated 9.4.2014 have been passed in cursory manner and not based on due considerations. 8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 3.4.2013 passed by District Magistrate, District Barabanki and the appellate order dated 9.4.2014 both are set aside.