IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6440 of 2009 Haridwar Singh, Son of Late Bhutan Singh, Resident of Village Sikthi, PS Sanjahuli, District Rohtas at Sasaram. ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. ------ Respondents. ----------- 3 28.11.2011 The petitioner’s Arms Licence No. 10 of 2005 for Rifle bearing no. 811017 has been cancelled. The petitioner filed for renewal which was dismissed on 13.4.2007 by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal which was also rejected on 30.12.2008. The licence of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was accused in a case under Sections 147 / 148 / 149 / 323 / 307 / 188 / 332 / 333 / 337 / 342 / 353:427 / 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act in Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 59 of 1992. It is alleged against the petitioner that he along with a mob of persons carrying his licensed gun, was responsible for firing, looting and destroying the government property and thereby creating hindrance in government function. The occurrence had taken place because of police firing which laid to protest by the villagers. After ten years the trial 2 commenced. During trial only two witnesses were examined. The informant of the case and the police witnesses who could have substantiated the allegations against the petitioner did not come forward to support their case during the trial. It was only the seizure list witnesses who came forward. From their evidence it has recorded in the judgment on 28.10.2009, would indicate that infact they were not able to substantiate that a Rifle was recovered from the petitioner. In the circumstances, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner. Once the Trial Court has acquitted the petitioner, that too, because of the reason that the case instituted against the petitioner by the State who is the informant in this case, is not substantiated as they did not pursue the matter, this Court finds that infact the ground taken by the Superintendent of Police and later by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna for rejecting the licence of the petitioner appears to be without any legal premises. In the circumstances aforesaid, the order as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 are hereby quashed. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram on an 3 application filed by the petitioner may pass an appropriate order renewing licence of the petitioner as it appears that he is not accused in any other case, within a period of three months. Once the licence is granted, the petitioner would be entitled for the release of his arms which he has deposited in a arms shop known as Saluja Shastralaya, Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas at Sasaram. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)