JUDGMENT : ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed praying for the following main relief: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing of the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 passed by opposite party No. 1 in Case No. 00462 of 2021 (Santosh Kumar vs. State), Computerized Case No. C202108000000462, under Section 18 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and order dated 18.03.2021 passed by opposite party No. 2 in Case No. 00485/2021 Computerized Case No. D202108150000485, State vs. Santosh Kumar, under Section-17 (3) of Indians Arms Act, 1959, as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition.” 3. The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was having an arms license. An incident occurred on 17.03.2020, on the basis of which an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and certain other persons on 18.03.2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the IPC. The case was registered as Case Crime No. 78 of 2020. After issuance of show cause notice and after considering the reply of the petitioner, the competent authority vide order dated 18.03.2021, a copy of which is Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, considering the pendency of the said criminal case, has cancelled the arms license of the petitioner. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, which too has been rejected vide order dated 18.01.2023, a copy of which is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 5. Being aggrieved by both the orders impugned, the instant writ petition has been filed. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is settled proposition of law that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel the arms license of the petitioner. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2010 (5) ADJ 594 as well as the case of Mukesh Kumar Yadav vs. Commissioner, Lucknow, 2017 (35) LCD 2017. 7. The contention is that despite the aforesaid law as laid down by this Court, the competent authority by simply considering the criminal case lodged against the petitioner has cancelled the arms license of the petitioner. 7. The contention is that despite the aforesaid law as laid down by this Court, the competent authority by simply considering the criminal case lodged against the petitioner has cancelled the arms license of the petitioner. He further states that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the said criminal case by the competent criminal court vide judgment and order dated 31.05.2022, a copy of which is Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, as such even the said ground no longer exists and consequently, there cannot be any occasion for continuance of the aforesaid orders. 8. On the other hand, Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing states that a perusal of the acquittal order dated 31.05.2022 would indicate that the petitioner has been granted acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 9. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2021 (10) ADJ 471 , it is argued that this Court has held that where the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt and not honorable acquittal the same may not resile from the fact that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents and as such there cannot be any occasion for continuance of arms license and thus it is prayed that no interference is required with the orders by which the arms license has been cancelled and the order by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From the perusal of the record, it emerges that on account of an incident which occurred on 17.03.2020, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 18.03.2020 under Section 148, 149, 149 and 302 of the IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No. 78 of 2020. During the pendency of the said case, after issuance of a show cause notice, the competent authority has cancelled the arms license of the petitioner vide order dated 18.03.2021 on the ground of pendency of the said criminal case. The said order has been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.01.2023. During the pendency of the said case, after issuance of a show cause notice, the competent authority has cancelled the arms license of the petitioner vide order dated 18.03.2021 on the ground of pendency of the said criminal case. The said order has been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.01.2023. Further the appellate authority has also considered the acquittal of the petitioner, though on the basis of benefit of doubt but has said that because the petitioner is a person having criminal antecedents, as such, there cannot be any occasion for continuance of the arms license of the petitioner. 12. Whether the arms license can be cancelled on the basis of pendency of criminal case is no longer res integra having settled by this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar (supra), wherein this Court has held as under: “8. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra vs. District Magistrate Basti and Others, 1979 (16) ACC 6 (sum), wherein the Division Bench relied upon an earlier decision in Mast Uddin vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573. In both the aforesaid cases it has been held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way effect the public security or public interest. In view of this proposition of law the order cancelling or revoking the licence of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground of involvement and pendency of a criminal case is not tenable. 9. In Full Bench Decision of this Court rendered in Chhanga Prasad Sahu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1984 (10) ALR 223 and Kailash Nath and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1985 (22) ACC 353 and in the case of Rana Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 1994 JIC 72 (All) : 1995 (Supp.) ACC 235, it has been held that mere pendency of a criminal case (s) is no ground for cancellation of arms licence. The effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions was also considered in Sadri Ram vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Others, 1998 (3) AWC 2102 : 1998 (37) ACC 830. 10. The effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions was also considered in Sadri Ram vs. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Others, 1998 (3) AWC 2102 : 1998 (37) ACC 830. 10. This court in the case of Harprasad (supra) held as hereunder: “Involvement and pendency of a case crime is no ground for cancellation of fire-arm licence. It is settled law that after acquittal the very basis for cancellation of the arm licence stands vitiated. In this regard reference of the decision rendered in Lalji vs. Commissioner, Kanpur and Another, 1999 (4) AWC 2952 , has been made.” 11. Thus in view of the admitted facts and the settled legal position that a fire arm licence can not be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement of licensee in a criminal case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Even otherwise the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case in which he was involved and hence there is no justification for the continuance of the cancellation of the petitioner's fire arm licence.” 13. When the facts of the instant case are seen in that context of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Yadav (supra), it emerges that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of arms license and thus the order dated 18.03.2021, which cancels the arms license of the petitioner simply on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, cannot be said to be legally sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. However, subsequent to the cancellation of the arms license vide order dated 18.03.2021 on account of pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the competent criminal court vide order dated 31.05.2022. 15. Subsequent thereto, the appeal that had been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.03.2021 has been decided by the appellate authority vide the order impugned dated 18.01.2023. The appellate authority while deciding the appeal has considered the order of the learned court dated 31.05.2022, by which the petitioner has been acquitted. 15. Subsequent thereto, the appeal that had been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.03.2021 has been decided by the appellate authority vide the order impugned dated 18.01.2023. The appellate authority while deciding the appeal has considered the order of the learned court dated 31.05.2022, by which the petitioner has been acquitted. The appellate authority was of the view that as the petitioner has been acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt as such it is to be presumed that the petitioner is a man of criminal tendency and that such a person should not have an arms license and has thus rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 16. The aforesaid order of dismissal of appeal is supported by learned Standing Counsel on the basis of a judgment of this Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh (supra), wherein it has been held that where the acquittal is not honorable but due to grant of benefit of doubt, the licensing authority would have sufficient material to hold that it would not be in the interest of public order and for security of public peace for continuance of the arms license. 17. There can be no doubt to the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh (supra). However, what has not been considered by the court is that when it is settled proposition of law that an arms license cannot be cancelled on the basis of the pendency of the criminal case, obviously there cannot be any cancellation in case a person has been acquitted in the said criminal case be it on the basis of benefit of doubt or an honorable acquittal. 18. Incidentally, this Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh (supra) while arriving at the said finding, has considered the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another vs. S. Samuthiram, 2013 (1) SCC 598 and State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Lovekush Meena (no citation indicated in the judgment, however, the citation is (2021) 8 SCC 774 ). Incidentally, both the cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertain to public employment. The case in hand does not pertain to public employment of any person rather pertains to the right of a person to an arms license. 19. Incidentally, both the cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertain to public employment. The case in hand does not pertain to public employment of any person rather pertains to the right of a person to an arms license. 19. Thus, keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment of Indrajeet Singh (supra) would have no applicability to the facts of the instant case. 20. Accordingly, keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.03.2021 and 18.01.2023, a copies of which are Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the petition, are quashed. 21. Consequences to follow.