IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.160 of 2009 SARYU GARAIN, SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN GARAIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARDIH, P.S. ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA ------PETITIONER-APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE–CUM-COLLECTOR, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 5. DY. S.P., HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA 6. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ISLAMPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT NALANDA— RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 20.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The writ court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and has upheld the order of the District Magistrate, Nalanda dated 13.7.1999 passed in Arms Case No.13 of 1998 whereby appellant’s licence for rifle was cancelled on the ground that he is an accused in Islampur P.S. Case No.166/1997 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The facts are not at all in dispute. The aforesaid criminal case contained an allegation that the appellant had fired his licensed rifle in the alleged occurrence without causing injury to anyone and although the police - 2 - submitted charge-sheet, the prosecution side appears to have agreed for compromise. From the order dated 27.3.2000 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa accepted the submissions on behalf of the appellant who was accused and discharged him from the trial under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after holding that in his opinion there is no material at all in the case. As a result, the appellant stood discharged for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. Against the order of the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif dated 13.7.1999; the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Patna. Before the Commissioner, the fact that the appellant has been discharged of the criminal charge was available but still the appeal was dismissed by order dated 14.6.2005 which was also challenged by the appellant through the writ petition in question. On behalf of the appellant, it has been - 3 - submitted that the only material for cancelling arms licence of the appellant was the allegation made in Islampur P.S. Case No.166/97 that he had fired without causing any injury and once the trial court discharged the appellant of charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the arms Act, the allegation must be deemed to have been rejected or not found substantiated. The mere fact that the informant filed a compromise petition, according to learned counsel for the appellant, should not have been taken against the appellant to hold that the allegations may be true on merits. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that at least the appellate authority, the Commissioner, should have appreciated the fact that the appellant had been discharged in the criminal case and hence, the allegations were found not substantiated. That being the only material for cancellation of arms licence, in our view, the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner was fit to be allowed and the order of the District Magistrate dated - 4 - 13.7.1999 should have been set aside. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and the writ petition. The orders impugned in the writ petition dated 13.7.1999 and the appellate order dated 14.6.2005 are hereby quashed. As a consequence, appellant’s arms licence should be restored to him without any delay and the arms deposited by him before the proper authority may be handed over to him in accordance with law. B.T. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.)