V.D. Bhargava, J.
1. This is an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution filed by one Pitamber Das who held license of two guns for several years. The license was in the name of his father and in 1937 was changed into his name when his father died. The petitioner's servant Ram Adhar on the 11th of January 1955 took one of the guns to the house of the cousin of the petitioner, Seth Puranmal, because there was Tilak ceremony. While the petitioner was busy this servant loaded the gun and fired it on the occasion of the tilak ceremony. The gun injured one Ram Khelawan a servant of Kashi and later on the servant was prosecuted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted.
Thereafter the petitioner was also prosecuted under Section 22 of the Indian Arms Act but in the circumstances of the case the Magistrate took a lenient view of the case and released him under Section 3 of the First Offenders Act on admonition. Thereafter the petitioner applied for the return of the license but the Deputy Commissioner without giving any opportunity to show cause on the 13th of July 1955 cancelled the petitioner's license on the ground that the licensee had been convicted under Section 22 of the Indian Arms Act.
2. Aggrieved with this order the petitioner has come to this Court,
3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a license could only be cancelled under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act. There are two clauses of this section. Clause (a) meant for cancellation of license in cases where there has been no conviction and any Magistrate or Commissioner deems it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel or suspend such license. Clause (b) relates to the cancellation of a license by the Magistrate or a Judge before whom the holder of the license has been convicted. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional Commissioner or the District Magistrate, can-mot cancel the license on the ground of his conviction. That should have been done by the Magistrate, if he thought fit, when he was convicted under Section 22 of the Indian Arms Act.
4. The second ground urged is that the Magistrate has not given a finding to the effect that it was necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel the license. In the circumstances it is argued -that this order is untenable.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that if a license is to be cancelled on the ground of the conviction it must be made by the Judge or the Magistrate before whom the case is pending in which the conviction is recorded otherwise there was no reason to have two different clauses in Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act. In the impugned order there is no other reason given why it was necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel the license. This clause means that the license can be cancelled when there is danger for the public in general and there is likelihood of the breach of public peace and it appears that it was not meant to apply to individual cases of conviction. Nobody appears for the State to oppose this application. In the circumstances of the case I allow the petition, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the petitioner's license and direct him to act according to law.