IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5126 of 2010 1. Haridwar Singh, son of late Suchit Singh 2. Lalan Singh, son of Sri Ram Prasad Singh Both residents of village-Odar, P.S.-Sonhan, District-Kaimur (Bhabua) -------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabua -------- Respondents ----------- 02. 18.07.2011 Heard Mr. Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, assisting counsel to G.P. 20 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.10.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna in Arms Appeal No. 27 of 2002 as contained in Annexure- 4, affirming the order dated 15.01.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in Miscellaneous(Arms) Case no. 30 of 2001/02 as contained in Annexure-3, whereby the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of their arms license has been rejected. Facts of the matter in brief is that the petitioners were holder of arms license in relation to D.B.B.L. gun under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Whereas the petitioner no. 1 was granted license in the year 1976 bearing license no. 701/1976, the petitioner no. 2 was granted license in the year 1995 bearing license no. 19/1995. The arms license of the petitioners was cancelled under the order 2 dated 27.3.1997 (Annexure-1) passed by the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in Arms Case No. 101/1996-97 by reason of involvement of the petitioners in a criminal case arising from Sonhan P.S. Case No. 16/1996 instituted under Sections 147,341, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioners challenged the order of cancellation of their arms license by filing a writ petition before this Court giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 154 of 1998 and a Bench of this Court upon consideration of the rival contentions was pleased to dismiss the writ petition with an observation that the petitioner after acquittal in the criminal case may make a request for restoration of license and in case such representation is filed, the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua would consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that the criminal case instituted against the petitioners ended in a partial acquittal vide judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhabua in G.R. No. 85 of 1996 / Trial No. 146 of 2001 arising from Sonhan P.S. Case no. 16 of 1996-97. The learned trial court while holding the petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code acquitted them of the charges framed under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel relying upon Sub-Section 7 of Section 17 of the Act, submits that it is only in circumstances 3 where a holder of license is convicted for any offence punishable under the Arms Act or the Rules thereunder that he can face suspension or revocation of license. It is contended that as admittedly the petitioners have been acquitted of the charges framed under Section 27 of the Arms Act their case was fit for consideration for restoration of their arms license. In this background the petitioners filed an application before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kaimur giving rise to Miscellaneous (Arms) Case No. 30 of 2001/02 and the respondent District Magistrate-cum-Collector vide order passed on 15.01.2002 has been pleased to reject the application of the petitioner. The order of rejection dated 15.01.2002 was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna vide order passed on 10.10.2009 in Arms Appeal No. 27 of 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the statutory authorities under the Act is non- speaking and does not indicate the reasons for cancellation of the license. It is contended that the grounds taken by the statutory authorities for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner being that “criminal review is an essential pre-requisite which the petitioners lack”, cannot be found in any of the provisions of the Arms Act as being any of the ground for debarring a person from grant of license. Learned counsel for the State, in support of the impugned order, submits that as admittedly the petitioners were 4 convicted for offence punishable under the provisions of Penal Code, definitely they were not considered fit persons for grant of license under the Arms Act and came within the purview of Section 14 of the Act. Be that as it may, the orders passed by the statutory authorities do not reflect application of mind qua the provisions as contained in Sections 14 and 17 of the Act. That being the position, the order as contained in Annexures-3 & 4 are set aside and the District Magistrate, Kaimur is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioners for restoration of their arms license afresh, in the backdrop of the statutory provision of Sections 14 and 17 of the Arms Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)