Judgment:
W.A.No.1089/2012 1 Niranjan Singh vs The State of M.P.27/06/2013 Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 09.05.2012 passed in W.P.No.17155/2007, by which, the writ petition preferred by the appellant against an order dated 12th November, 2007 of the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in an appeal, which was preferred against an order dated 01.10.2003 of the District Magistrate cancelling the arms licence of the appellant, has been dismissed.”
2. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that after issuance of licence, a criminal case was registered against the appellant and the appellant was directed by the District Magistrate by an order Annexure R/6 dated 29.07.2003 to deposit the arm, but the arm was not deposited and ultimately on 01.10.2003 a final order was passed, by which, the arms licence of the appellant was cancelled.
Apart from this, against the appellant, an offence under Sections 323, 294, 341, 436 and 506-B of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also registered.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the licence was cancelled.
The Commissioner by the order Annexure P/2 dated 12th November, 2007 considered the matter in appeal and found that the allegations made against the appellant were proved and inspite of the order of the District Magistrate the arm was not deposited and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
This order was under challenge before the writ Court.”
3. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings of the District Magistrate are incorrect to the effect W.A.No.1089/2012 2 that the arm was not deposited, but from the perusal of the impugned order dated 01.10.2003 of the District Magistrate, it appears that this fact has been specifically mentioned that till the date of passing of the order, the arm was not deposited by the appellant.
In the earlier order dated 29.07.2003, the District Magistrate specifically directed the appellant to deposit the arm forthwith, but it appears that inspite of the aforesaid order, the arm was not deposited.
This act of the appellant itself was sufficient to cancel the arms licence and on the aforesaid ground the arms licence was cancelled, the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner and learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition, no fault is found in the aforesaid ordeRs.Thus, this appeal is found without merits and is accordingly dismissed.”
4. As we have considered merits of the case and dismissed the writ appeal, it is not necessary for us to consider I.A.No.12459/2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing present appeal.
The aforesaid application is also dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge SJ/-