KRISHAN LAL SURI Vs. LT GOVERNOR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Writ Petition broueht by Krishan Lal Suri, petitioner, to challenge the seizure of his arms licence issued under the Arms Act, 1919 and also his shooting licence granted under the Punjab Wild Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act, 193) as extended to Delhi. It appears that the petitioner holds a licence under the Arms Act, which relates to (a) one single barrel gun, (b) a double barralgun and (e) a rifle. He also holds alicence issued under the Punjab Wild Birds and Wild Animals Protection Act (hareinafter referred to as the Punjab Act). It appears that once a person has a licence under the Arms Act, he is entitled to get a shooting licence under the Punjab Act on the payment of a modest fee. The petitioner's licence under the Arms Act was to expire on 12th November, 1971, but he made an application for renewal before this date and paid Rs. 661- which was the prescribed fee. This is the fee for three years.

(2.) . From the facts disclosed in the Writ Petition, it appears that the petitioner shot a hare(Khargosh) in the off season and there by infringed the provisions of the Punjab Act. The said Act provides that certain animals can only be shot, captured or possessed in particular sea sons and as far as hares are concerned, the period is 15th September to 31st March. The petitioner admitted his guilt and was fined Rs. 10.00 by Shri Raja Ram, Magistrate. On 19th August, 1971, a notice was issued under Section 5 of the Punjab Act to the petitioner by Shri Sant Lal Nagrath. Games Inspector, respondent No. 4. This notice required the petitioner to produce his shooting licence on 1st September, 1971. I may reproduce Section 5 of the Punjab Act at this stage :-

(3.) . According to the petitioner on 23rd September, 1971, a police constable and an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police came to the petitioner's residence in Tilak Nagar, Delhi, and asked him to hand over his arms licence as well as the shooting licence. A seizure memorandum was also prepared at the lime of the taking over of these two licences, which is Annexure'G' to the Writ Petition. Later, on, the petitioner applied to the District Magistrate for the return of the two licences but the same were not relumed. This was followed by a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was also not complied with. In view of the non-return of the licences to the petitioner, the petitioner brought this Writ Petition on 18th November. 1971.