RAFIQ, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned-orders dated 6/8/1997 (Ann. 1) and 26/6/1998 (Ann. 2) passed by the learned Collector and District Magistrate Dholpur and learned Divisional Commissioner Jaipur rejecting the application of the petitioner and thereafter dismissing the appeal filed against the order dt. 6/8/97, petitioner has preferred this writ petition questioning non-renewal of his arms licence.
(2.) PETITIONER was holding the Arm Licence bearing No. 26/86 of Gun 12 Bore No. 12210. A criminal case bearing F. I. R. No. 105/1992 was registered against him at P. S. Badi, Distt. Dholpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307 I. P. C. Consequent upon registration of the said F. I. R. , police seized his above gun. Thereafter, petitioner SBCWP No. 4045/2007 was acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 28/11/1996. He moved an application before the learned Collector & District Magistrate Dholpur for renewal of the arm license. The said application was rejected vide impugned order dated 6/8/1997 (Ann. 1 ). Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur but the appeal too was rejected vide impugned order dated 26/6/1998 (Ann. 2 ). Hence, this writ petition. I have heard Shri Shiv Lal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. Shri Shiv Lal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 6/8/1997 rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of arm license and further order of rejection of appeal preferred against the said order dated 6/8/1997 vide order dated 26/6/1998, are not in conformity with the law as petitioner was honourably acquitted in Sessions Case No. 25/1993 by the trial Court but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by any of the Courts below. Impugned orders were therefore contrary to the provision of Section 17 of the Arms Act and are also against the principles of natural justice. He in this connection relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. : J. T. 1998 (7) SC 243 Shri Shiv Lal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that most of the cases referred to in the impugned-order were stale and the petitioner has been acquitted in them.
(3.) IN view of these facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner has become a threat to the peace and tranquility of the society so as to justify denial of renewal of his arms license. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and scrutinised the material on record. On perusal of the order dated 6/8/1997, it reveals that learned Collector & District Magistrate Dholpur rejected the application of the petitioner exercising powers conferred under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act on the report obtained from Superintendent of Police Dholpur. It would be evident from the order of the Collector that Criminal Case No. 560/1994 for offence under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC ended in acquittal of the petitioner because of compromise with the aggrieved party. He was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 105/1992 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. ;