HAKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present petition, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 28.12.1987 (Annexure P/4) and dated 21.7.1988 (Annexure P/6) whereby weapon belonging to the father of petitioner was forfeited. Brief factual background of the case is that Hazur Singh -father of petitioner was licencee of 12 bore double barrel gun bearing No. 38584 and licence no. 28/A/M -126/M. Father of petitioner expired on 3.1.1983. His weapon was deposited by his L.R. (petitioner -herein) with Punjab Gun House, Mansa. Later on petitioner submitted an application dated 4.8.1987 for transfer of licensed weapon of his father in his own name. He submitted before the authority that he also possessed licence bearing No. 389/DM/P.S. Mansa. After submission of application, notice was issued to the petitioner to show why weapon be not forfeited for not disposing the same within one year from the date of deposit under Rule 46(4)(b) of the Arms Rules, 1962. In reply, petitioner stated that due to certain domestic circumstances, he could not apply within the prescribed period. Authority came to the conclusion that as application had not been made within the prescribed period, gun was liable to be forfeited. Accordingly, impugned order (Annexure P/4) was passed by Additional District Magistrate, Bathinda. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by non -speaking order (Annexure P/6).

(2.) BEFORE this court, petitioner has contended that impugned orders are unsustainable in law. Additional District Magistrate did not consider the circumstances due to which application was submitted beyond the prescribed period. It merely rejected the application by invoking Rule 46(4)(b) of the Arms Act. Appellate authority did not assign any reasons at all for rejecting the appeal. He has relied upon judgment reported as Joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab,, 1988 (1) RCR 376.

(3.) KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that impugned orders (Annexure P/4 and Annexure P/6) deserve to be set -aside. Ratio of judgment in Joginder Singh's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of instant case. Impugned orders (Annexure P/4 and Annexure P/6) are thus set -aside. Respondents are directed to transfer the weapon i.e. 12 bore double barrel gun bearing No. 38584 belonging to deceased -father of petitioner in the name of petitioner after completing necessary formalities. Petition is allowed in these terms.