VIDHYARAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition has called in question the orders issued by the respondents vide Annexure P-3, dated 2-11-98, Annexure P-6, dated 20-11-2000 and Annexure P-7, dated 10-4-2001. The short facts giving rise to the present dispute is that the petitioner's father was holder of N. P. Bore Rifle No. 8536/1937 which was duly licenced by the competent authority. Because of a criminal case registered against the petitioner and his father, the said rifle was seized by the Police, Morena. The petitioner and his father were put to trial and the 3rd A. S. J. , Morena vide order dated 2-4-92 (Annexure P-l) acquitted the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the trial, the father of the petitioner had expired. In the judgment the learned Court had ordered that on submitting a valid licence by the petitioner within three months the rifle in question shall be returned to him and further directed to send the same to the Collector in case the petitioner did not claim it within the stipulated time.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that after the death of his father he became the lawful owner of the rifle and after renewal of the licence, which was done on 25-12-98 and is evident from Annexure P-2. He moved necessary application for release of the rifle. However by Annexure P-3 the 3rd A. S. J. , Morena rejected the same without considering the submissions made by the petitioner. Thereafter a show-cause notice (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner and in the said show-cause notice it was indicated that as to why action as per Section 21 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 be not initiated against him and the licence be confiscated and treated as property of the State.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure P-5. The same was rejected vide Annexure P-6, dated 20-11-2000 and thereafter the appeal filed has also been rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in asking for release of the rifle is because the licence itself was renewed on 25-12-98. That apart, it is submitted by him that his application for release of the same was arbitrarily rejected without consideration vide Annexure P-3 and thereafter the show-cause notice and proceedings taken for confiscation of the same under Section 21 (3) is not warranted and the said provisions are not applicable. It is his case that in the facts and circumstances, the respondents should have directed for return of the rifle to him as there is no case made out for confiscation of the same and there is no allegation of breach of peace, danger to public security or violation of the terms and conditions of the licence against the petitioner.