IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13788 of 2009 Suresh Paswan, son of Manki Paswan, resident of village-Pathara, P.O., P.S. & Anchal-Aaraos, District-Gaya. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Supply, Commerce and Food, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sherghati, District-Gaya. 4. Assistant District Supply Officer, Sherghati, District-Gaya. 5. Divisional Commissioner, Gaya. -Respondents. ----------- 02 26.10.2009 The petitioner was member under Public Distribution system whose licence was cancelled in the year 2005. Against cancellation his appeal was dismissed and so his revision was also dismissed in the year 2005. Those orders attained finality. For similar allegations a criminal case was also instituted against him. Petitioner has been acquitted in the year 2008. The order of acquittal is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. A perusal of the order of acquittal would show that the acquittal is not on merit but because of the case. In an old case no prosecution witnesses turned up to depose. Two witnesses were turned up but they were declared hostile. Thus, it was not a case of clean acquittal. It was acquittal for technical reason. Petitioner now files application for restoration of his licence. In my view, cancellation of licence and prosecution are two different and distinct aspects of the mater. One is an administrative decision and the other is a matter of criminal prosecution. One has to be decided on preponderance of evidences and the other on ground of - 2 - proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, giving benefit of doubt to the accused. The two cannot be equated. Mere acquittal in such facts and circumstances of the case would not revive the licence of the petitioner. The writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)