Alok Singh, J.

1. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 9th July, 2014, passed by the District Magistrate Dehradun cancelling the arm licence of the petitioner and judgment and order dated 19.12.2014, passed by the Commissioner Garhwal whereby appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 was dismissed. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that arm licence No. 820/Rishikesh/2005/Dehradun was issued in favour of the petitioner for SBBL gun No. VS 20578; an F.I.R. was got registered against the petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the Indian Medical Council Degree Act, 1916, being Case Crime No. 324 of 2009, with Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun saying that petitioner does not have valid medical degree; thereafter another F.I.R. was got registered against the petitioner, being Case Crime No. 189 of 2011, with Police Station Nehru Colony, Dehradun, under Sections 354 and 504 I.P.C.; both the Criminal Cases are pending disposal before the competent Court; a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner by the District Magistrate saying police has reported to the District Magistrate that petitioner is found indulging in criminal activities and is threat to the public peace, therefore, as to why his arm licence may not be cancelled; having perused the replies submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, learned District Magistrate was pleased to pass impugned order dated 9 July, 2014 cancelling the arm licence of the petitioner on the ground that since two criminal cases, as narrated hereinbefore, are pending disposal against the petitioner, therefore, his arm licence must be cancelled; feeling aggrieved petitioner has preferred statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner Garhwal which too came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19.12.2014. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition.

2. This Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2014 (2) U.D. 207, in paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 has held as under:-

"4. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as under:-

"Section 17 - Variation, suspension and revocation of licences

(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.

(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,-

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.

(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

(6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.

(7) A court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made there under may also suspend or revoke the licence:

Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. 4

(8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.

(9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act thought India or any part thereof.

(10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under the section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation."

5. Arms licence can be revoked or suspended if either of the conditions mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act is satisfied. Besides this, arms licence can also be revoked on the application of the licence holder.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State, vehemently argued that arms licence was cancelled/revoked by invoking sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act.

7. As per Section 17(3)(b) of the Act, if licensing authority deems it necessary for the public peace and public safety, may suspend or revoke the licence. Undisputedly, there was no criminal case registered against the petitioner except F.I.R. No. 35 of 2008, Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar wherein petitioner was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 26.02.2010 which has attained finality.

8. Learned Standing Counsel could not point out any material to say that there were other criminal complaints/F.I.R., too, against the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel also could not tell as to weather petitioner was ever challaned under Sections 107, 116 and 151 of the Cr.P.C.

9. In my considered opinion to invoke Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, it must be established that petitioner is threat to pubic peace and public safety. In view of the observation made hereinbefore, it cannot be established that petitioner is threat to the public peace and public safety."

3. This is not the case of the respondents/State that petitioner has ever pointed gun or has ever misused the gun. Registration of the criminal cases under Section 420 I.P.C. read with Section 6 of the Indian Medical Council Degree Act, 1916 on the ground that medical degree issued by the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine Act, 1951 is not recognized in the State of Uttarakhand, cannot be said that petitioner has ever misused the licencee gun. Perusal of F.I.R. under Sections 354 and 504 I.P.C. also reveals that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has ever misused his licencee gun while committing the alleged offence of molesting the girl.

4. In my humble opinion, mere registration of the F.I.R., wherein misuse of the licencee gun is not at all alleged, is not sufficient ground to invoke Section 17 of the Arms Act.

5. It is nowhere mentioned in the impugned orders that as to how petitioner can be said to be threat to public peace and security, therefore, orders impugned do not sustain in the eyes of law.

6. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned orders are hereby quashed. CLMA No. 2308 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.