- (1.) THE order of the District Magistrate, Karnal, dated July 4, 1970 (Annexure 'a')cancelling the gun license of the petitioner under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), has been impugned by Labh Singh petitioner in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on various grounds to which reference will be made after setting out the relevant facts briefly.
(2.) IN connection with an incident which occurred in the village Chanar Heri, police-station Thaska Miranji District Karnal, October 24, 1969, a rival version of that incident was given to the police two days later, i. e. , on October 26, 1969, wherein an allegation was for the first time made against the petitioner to the effect that he had fired his gun in the course of the said incident. Though the firing of the gun had originally been attributed to Jhabra etc. and though it is alleged that the name of the petitioner did not even occur in the daily diary report originally lodged in connection with the occurrence in question, the police took over the possession of the petitioner's gun during the course of the investigation of the case. There is no dispute about the fact that the gun is still in the custody of the State, and the criminal case registered against the petitioner in connection with the above mentioned occurrence is still pending.
(3.) A show cause notice, dated January, 9, 1970 issued by the District Magistrate, karnal, was served on the petitioner on or about February 21, 1970. In that notice, it was stated that whereas the petitioner has been arrested and challenged under Section 324 read with Section 34 and Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, he had misused his gun in the aforesaid case against his opposite party, and was, therefore, unfit for holding an arms license. Besides asking the petitioner to show cause against the proposed cancellation of the license, the District Magistrate suspended the arms license of the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act. petitioner claims that he submitted an appeal against the abovesaid order to the divisional Commissioner on July 22, 1970, and that someone else preferred an appeal against the same order on that very day. Whereas an appeal said to have been preferred by the other person is stated to have been returned to him as it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order under appeal, the memorandum of appeal alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner has not been traced. In any case a fresh appeal was filed by him on November 27, 1970, which was dismissed by the order of the Commissioner, Ambala Division, dated january 5, 1971 (Annexure 'b'), on the short ground that it was barred by time. The effective order of which the validity has, therefore, been questioned is that of the District Magistrate, though the same was upheld by the Commissioner without going into the merits on account of the appeal being barred by time.;