BUTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 962 and 1917 of 1989.

(2.) The petitioners are the son and widow Jalaure Singh who was a licence holder of a. 12 before DBEL gun No. 82864 covered under licence No. 908. The aforesaid Jalaur Singh died on 10.9.1988 In accordance with the provisions of section 21 the Arms Act (hereinafter called the Act), petitioners deposited the gun of the deceased with the Police Station Sadar, Moga on 14.9.1984. The deceased had also left behind a Will in favour of the petitioners but as there was a dispute amongst the beneficiaries under the Will and other natural heir of the deceased, the gun continued to be in the custody of Police Station Sadar Moga. It appears that the dispute between the parties was settled, the petitioner applied to the District Magistrate vide annexure P-1 dated 8.7.1988 that they be allowed to sell the weapon in question. The District Magistrate Faridkot, however, vide annexure P-3 purporting to take action under section/ 21(3) of the Act forfeited the weapon in question on the ground that it had no been disposed of within two years from the date of deposit as provided under Rule 4 of the Arms Rules 1962. The order annexure P-3 has been impugned before me primarily on the ground that as the question of succession to the property left by Jalaur Singh was in dispute between the various claimants, the weapon in question couldnot be soldearlier and as such the rigid applicability of Section 21(3) was no called for. It has been highlighted that this aspect of the matter was put before the District Magistrate who brushed it aside by saying. "the plea that the mutation was sanctioned on 20.8.1987 has no concern with the disposal of the weapon. In reply to the petition, it has been stated by the respondents that as the mutation was sanctioned on 20.8.1987 and the application for permission to sell the weapon was made on 8.7.1988, the delay was unjustified.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considerating the facts of the case, particularly the fact that the succession to the property of Jalaur Singh was in dispute, the District Magistrate shouldhave allowed some time to dispose of the weapon. It is to be noted that the rigid letter of the law has to sometimes, give way in its applicability to the facts of a particular case. I am of the view that it was indeed not possible for the petitioners to dispose of the weapon till the question of succession was settled. I am supported in the view that I have taken by a judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 1 RCR(Cri) 376. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs and a direction is issued to the District Magistrate to allow a period of six months to the petitioners to dispose of the weapon in any manner authorised by law.