Petitioner's fire arm licence had been cancelled on 21.9.2004. At no point of time said order has been subject matter of challenge. Thereafter, on 18.5.2009 after 4½ years appeal had been filed along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Appellate Authority has considered the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and has found that grounds mentioned therein do not constitute sufficient cause; said appeal has been dismissed being time barred. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Tripathi B.G.Bhai, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case order of cancellation had been based on account of initiation of proceeding in Case Crime No. 331 of 2002, under Sections 436 and 302 I.P.C. and read with Section 3(2((V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Barsana, Disdtrict Mathura and therein he has been acquitted on 28.11.2007 and further he has also been acquitted in Case Crime No. 330 of 2002 under Section 277 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(X) SC//ST Act, P.S. Barsana, District Mathura on 2.8.2008. Once order of acquittal had been passed, then he had moved an application for recall of the order of cancellation and said restoration application was not entertained. Thereafter he preferred an appeal, same has also been dismissed and in view of the proviso of Section 17 (7) of the Indian Arms Act writ petition be entertained and allowed.
Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that Section 17 (7) of the Indian Arms Act is not at all applicable or attracted and here appeal has rightly been dismissed as time barred, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position which is emerging in the present case is that proceedings for cancellation had been undertaken and order of cancellation has been passed on 21.9.2004. The statutory remedy provided for filing appeal is 30 days and petitioner did not prefer any appeal whatsoever and said order had attained 2 finality.
It appears that after order of acquittal had been passed, petitioner has proceeded to move an appeal supported by application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellate authority has rightly proceeded to reject the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as, grounds which were furnished for approaching Appellate Authority did not furnish sufficient cause/ground to explaining the delay and latches. As a pretence theory was set up that he was not well and as such ex-parte order was passed. The appeal has rightly been dismissed as time barred in the fact of the present case.
In the present case provisions of Section 17 (7) of the Indian Arms Act are not at all applicable or attracted for the simple reason that at no point of time any criminal court while proceeding to pass order of conviction, simultaneously has proceeded to pass order of suspension/cancellation and then as per proviso, in the event of appeal being allowed, said order is to be treated as null and void. There is complete misconception in the mind of the learned counsel for the petitioner qua provision of Section 17 (7) of the Indian Arms Act, as in the present case admittedly criminal court at no point of time has ever passed any order of suspension/cancellation, which cannot be treated as null and void, on order of acquittal being passed by the criminal court.
Consequently, this court refuses to interfere with the order impugned. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of petitioner to move fresh application for grant of fire arm license and in case such application is moved, same shall be dealt with by licensing authority in accordance with law.
With these observations, writ petition is dismissed. Dt. 28.01.2010 T.S.