M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated llth September, 1979, whereby, he allowed the revision filed by the State and set -aside the order dated 29 9 -1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal discharging the petitioner for the offence Under Section 420 IPC.
(2.) THE gravemen of the charge against the petitioner is, that he submitted an application for renewal of licence of his D88L gun No. 105293 to the S.D.M. Bhinmal and got it renewed on 24 -11 -1972 and further got the renewal of the licence from S.D.M. Jaitaran on 14 -12 -1975 knowing it fully well that his licence had already been suspended by S.D.M Beawar by order No. 42 dated 15/16 4 -1969 and after getting the licence renewed obtained his D.B.B.L. gun from the court of S O M Bhinmal. His gun and the licence were recovered in connection with the investigation of an opium case, in which, he was convicted and his licence was suspended on account of illegal possession of 25 cartridges. The petitioner was convicted and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ -. In that case with regard to his plea, the petitioner stated that he had no knowledge of suspension of the licence. The learned Judicial Magistrate Bhinmal did not find any prima -facie case against the petitioner so, discharged him. How ever, on the state revision, the order was set -aside, and the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the material on record, found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and the charge is not groundless. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, I am satisfied that the order of the learned Sessions Judge calls for no interference. 'Prima -facie' what is to be seen is as to whether the petitioner had the knowledge of the fact at the time of moving the application of renewal of licence, that his licence, stands suspended. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the material with regard to the knowledge of the fact of suspension of licence. Cartridges were found in possession of the petitioner and he was prosecuted Under Section 125 Arms Act. The papers reveal that the licence was suspended by the S.D.M. Beawar, by a specific order on a specific date. It is not the case of the petitioner that the papers of that case were not delivered to him. Case No. 82 of 1971 arose out of FIR No. 11/1975 of Police Station Beawar Under Section 125 Arms Act, A challan in that case was submitted in that Court in 1971 and the charges was framed as late as 17 -2 -1972 and the learned Sessions Judge therefore, recorded that those papers specifically state that the prosecution was based on the fact that since the licence of the accused had been suspended in April, 1969, still in his possession 25 cartridges were found and it was because of the fact that the licence was no more valid, he has prosecuted Under Section 125 Arms Act The learned Sessions Judge also considered the plea of the accused recorded on 17 -2 -1972 in which he stated that he was not aware of the fact that his licence has been suspended by the S.D.M. Beawar in April, 1969. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, concluded that he is of the opinion that at this stage of the case it may be safely said that due to the prosecution in criminal case No. 82 of 1971, this fact had come to the knowledge of the petitioner and he was fully aware that his licence had been suspended by S.D M Beawar, in April, 1969 and it was on account of this that the accused stated in reply to the charge that he did not know about the suspension of the licence. The learned Sessions Judge also considered the fact that it may be that the order of suspension was not communicated to the petitioner, still he got the knowledge of the order suspension. He got the licence renewed, concealing the fact that his licence bad already been suspended by S.D.M. Beawar in April, 1969. Beside that the petitioner has also concealed, that a conviction was also recorded Under Section 125, Arms Act. This was also a material fact in connection with the renewal of the licence. Disclosure of conviction under the Opium Act was tot important for the renewal of the licence. The present prosecution of the petitioner is based on these concealments by the petitioner I agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge and in try opinion the learned Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate whereby the petitioner was discharged.
(3.) THIS revision has no force, so, it is here by dismissed.;