"% -^l-ll •ViaHI 3Q ronaii.Egroo'gm; ao 98g msissy vsaso.soiiii^a. 'SSK5I(BIOdS5IB «(dH) .rad^Td«V^ Bpngjns 's^Bj^srSBB ^oTpjStSTa eTQ; •e'1 •Uw.) .m<isBTi;a 'suoz .radsB-Etg '.tsaotssTnaog sig; *g •(ffl) TsdoqEt s, 'us&Bqg m^TTBA '•d'M JO 'I&OS 'SBog jo l.u8uq..redsa 'jS.rsq.s.raes 9^3; qSito.nQ; qs&pB.rd -eSvcffeH jo sq.sqs sv&^ T ' 'w. - . • •B'aioi.tiiad » ss' sn ias 31• M • (g»()? .mg ^oT.rq.sTa ^.rpuni TTSIOI^TO^S uotq.^q.g ©OTToa 'WtO-si^jBtH eSeiTTA J° qnspTseg ''i.STjn^TTOTJS'v tss'ee£ g& psSs 'WTTWlTffSH Wtsqs s'^e'l jo aos UTppnm?BH ^^o^-^S66T/ ^ ^ Q ^ CS MOISIISd MSft •aadiysvr ly ' Hssivad visa.n so smoo HSIH J2I XI-HC-22 sn^TW f^iN?3D^?r sbt1 gf?(T 35T;^IP(RPI', BTfl'M'IS,.Rtc1l^y KmMraiHrai 311^1 Mach ^..^e.i^^c^ 200 311^1 ^dlWdfSd .7. Shri B.D, Guru, couiis< Shri Suiul Otwaiii, Pan' Heanl botli tfae counsel The petitioner has pref the Coustitution of India q^iestioniug fhe legality^ propriety and correctness of order dated 201 District Magistiate, Saiguji (Annexure P-8) passed tsy tb^ Commissioner dismissed thel the order passed by fhe Distr Brief facts, as set out petition are that fhc pctition^ Section 13 ofthe Indiaa Armt purchased a 315 Bore Rifle b vehicle aad in that respecli subinitted his replv dated n petiuoncr Iiag(incntioncd fh^ Kumar, who was fhe ownl Rs.1,20,000/- and the said inKiTci'fl.f NiiiiT?ftec8'<Ri«i< ^ail^ITSn^T 1 for the petitioner. :1 Lazvvcr for flic State. :n'ed fhis petition under Article 226 of 10.1994 (Annexure P-5) passed by the and also ordcr datcd 25.2.1995 Conunlssioner, Bflaspur, whereby ftie appeal of the petitioiier and afiSrmed .ct Magistrate. ^a the petitioii, leading to fiUng of this r, on an appUcation bciag laadc under Act, was granted License No. 13/93 to possess 315 Borc Ri&e. Alfter the grant of license the petitioner ^ring N0.93-A-B-0832- On 23.9.1994 respondent No.3, on receivi(ig a coniplaiat, issued a show caiise noticc to thc petitioncr inci(.tionuig thcrcin. ffaat a coiaplaint uas beeu received agahist ttie petttioner fhat he is iavolved ia a theft ofa charge sheet has been filed by the Allahabad Police. In respo4.se to fb.e said notice Uie petitioner .10,1994 (Anaexure P-3) ia which the t his son iianicly Akbar purchascd thc jeep beariag registration nu|mtoer MP27-A-2264 fi-om one Shyara T of said jeep, in eonsideration of eep was registered in the natne of his ^) 't. XI-HC-22 an^T^ir FTWairar sb^i+yRd 33T •<<I''4I<-1'4, ^Til'M'IS, (s|<'l|*l^< 311^1 Macft lltlWI shlich ••••••••••••••••••••• ^ 200 R'b< 311^1 gWIWElf?CT hold the licence aiid there&r^, 17 oftfae Indian Anns Act, 19[ Thc ordcr passed by perverse, for the rcason fh.^ mentioned that the pe^itioner the nuxnberofvehicle, kind oj| was aot inenti&aed IB the sb<[ fhe petitioner veiy fairly bearmg number MP27-A-226+ seized by AUahabad PoUce, h^ agam.st said Shyam Kuniar, ^[ fhe theft of said jeep, fhe poli<t |, his liceiice is revoked under gectkiii '^9. Ijhe District Magistratc is pruna-facic fct in the show cause notice it was |is iiivolved in fheft ofvehicle, but even vehicle, case number &, criiae nuin.ber )>w cause notice. wbereas. in fhe replv fhat LUidcr soine doutot thc jccp cxpl^iucd was nothiiig ou rccord wbic]^ vehidle tdaf involved m aav tfaeft of granted to him. Apart from tuentioned iu the noti.ee were] in the order itapugned that rcgistercd at Policc Statioa Si^ Sections 396,597,599,402 of] Arms Act. However, ia that iu. absence of evidence. la fhe first instance, th^ fherefore, that could.not bav^ licence unless some ottier Magistrate for rcvocation of luaterial before tbe Ma«istrate] +i*itd<l1-f xif<-)T^te^<Ri«i< ^iSTf^ITStI^T t o{ wbicli hls son was fhe owner was ^ ^ iwever, wh.cn nofhmg has been found wbo was the origrual owner, regatdiug ;e released fhe vehicle, As such, tiiere gocs to show that the petitioner was or misused the Bcence, whlch was some other grounds whichwere not laentiioned by the District Magistiate Sie was accused in Crim.e No. 114/76 apur for coiiumission of offeacc under the IPC aad Sections 25 & 27 ofthe ;ase the petitioner has been acqiiitted ; petitioner was acquitted of that case, ? . c bccn inadc grouiid for rcvocation of malterial terial was available before tfae leamed licence. In fact, there was no otlier to fonn an opinion fhat the petitioner (^a^W) 3§pnp oopeqg -3^ 2/PS 'sapl.z •pansenli Aqajaq are .mdsBpg '( S66I'5'SS pai^p japio pitB BfnSjBS '; passBd t?66I'OT'OE p3 p J3pio sqi pa^ oi saAiaaap aoTinsd sirp. 'HOSBSI Suiog:aipj 3lp ui panojS ou: SBA'I 'soaaoit sip 8in^ paiueq Aq U35[Bi SBA qoiqA 'punojS aqj jauouRad 3iR -isqisqM 'SJSTO. SBM ijodai) iit STiiBS 3q+inou^ .uoniiain OVL si aigtR aip. jo ijodai srp inoq" apBia na Sltl OSR3 Sl IIOSBM 3TCTOS 3Tp .(OJ p33ddl3 aqi jo STitpug sip. 'ATSiitpjoooB pue ssj^ p3iLiB3i Aq ys psAi.LEB sgiripirg: atp qans ^' jo ^saia^in avfi nr aq ^oii flTA 3in STllAlorps jo luiy 01 pSlTtKlS 301130^ l!;^l>phU-)K>t^ :^&] h (Uhlh (.^UJfc.l* jsd SB Xdoo pagpjso '^:3UQlssTTllTa:c>3 s'qi Aq pas^ed 3^t3-4Si3BiAi loiqsiQ paujesi Aq P3AORB Sl 31IEBS 'p3AOtIB 3q STR. 10} 'ipisai aip. u{ •AVB^JO 83A8 Il^lOAdJ JOJ ai'&nsrfiB^ 13UISIQ [J- '3ro1 9vff pssnsTm suip AUB jo puis{ ^qA\ iBip. jspjo 3T{1 |.nq 33^03 JD inapHaitiusdng [3pq SBq '- 30T[£!j3J3J V 'asjSiYi'sd SuTss-tTasip JsaoTssiiKmoo »AI3(I 3JB 3lBItSI§Bp\[ 13U1SIQ ;V 'oiiqnd jo uonBJlsiuTmp^ >]jt-t aq^ da3S[ o^ jaaoiiiiad 3Tp pSSTlSTTII ABd'- .XTJB TIT ua]F»ftilB-).91i;^ltf» 'S»4bj OOZ 'bti _J , tblhttS IWhlh '^fiW'y(^~ <teKh [k\ •>'R»ii-iy'2>i,ftyi®' h.i^ih.ih- in-p ^M -/i-reusoa -;•' • 3 uajnifriiiiis l^ltplfel^ 1'feI^Ue ZZ-3H-IX