NARAIN SINGH PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has failed in both the courts below and has now come up in second appeal before this Court.

(2.) The plaint case in brief was that licence No. 6597 for a pistol of non-prohibited bore was granted to the plaintiff on 22nd Feb. 1964 by the District Magistrate, Jhansi. On 11-9-64, the plaintiff purchased a .25 bore pistol bearing No. 42114 from one Sri Viren-dra Singh, who was himself a licence-holder and owned the said pistol. However, the pistol had been illegally got deposited from Sri Virendra Singh under the directions of in-charge P. S. Samthor. The pistol was later on deposited in the Malkhana, Jhansi. Without revoking or cancelling the licence held by Sri Virendra Singh the pistol in question was forfeited. According to the plaintiff the direction to deposit the weapon in the Malkhana was absolutely illegal and Virendra Singh lasally continued to be its owner and was therefore, also entitled to sell the same. In 1964. the plaintiff applied for the renewal of his licence and for endorsing pistol No. 42114 on it for the years 1965-66-67 and the same was renewed for three years on 12-2-1965. After its renewal the licence was returned to the plaintiff but neither the weapon was endorsed on his licence nor the same was handed over to him in spite of repeated requests. It was alleged that the weapon in question is not one of prohibited bore and therefore, the plain- tiff had not violated the conditions of the licence. It was further alleged that even a notice of forfeiture was not given to Virendra Singh before it was allegedly forfeited on 11-9-64. The plaintiff had validlv purchased the wea-pon from Virendra Sineh under a re-ceipt and had also got his licence duly renewed. However, the authorities have refused to hand over the pistol to the plaintiff which continues to be in possession of the defendant. The plaintiff was thus compelled to file the suit for declaration that he was the owner of the pistol in question and was also entitled to possess and dispose of the same and that its retention in the armoury was illegal.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant in which grant of licence of a non-prohibited bore to the plaintiff is admitted. It is also admitted that the licence of the plaintiff was renewed for the years 1965-66-67 but the defendant contended that the suit was bad for want of service of valid notice under Section 80, C. P. C. and the suit for a mere declaration was not maintainable. When the plaintiff's licence was renewed for the vears 1965-66-67 he was directed to purchase a weapon but Virendra Sineh neither sold the pistol in question to the plaintiff nor he had any authority to sell the same. In fact, the pistol already stood forfeited in favour of the State and, therefore, the plaintiff could not acquire any title to the same, it was further stated that although the pistol was entered in the arms licence of Virendra Singh till 1956 but thereafter the licence was never got renewed. It is also alleged that Virendra Singh had voluntarily deposited the weapon on 18-3-66 at the police station whereafter it had been forfeited in favour of the State. It was alleged that the pistol was an automatic weapon and conies within the definition of "prohibited arms" as defined in the Arms Act. The District Magistrate also had no authority to issue any licence for the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's locus standi to claim the weapon was denied and it was stated that only Virendra Singh could claim the pistol, if at all.