2010 Y L R 2269
[Quetta]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
BAZ MUHAMMAD ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2007, decided on 7th June, 201 0.
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) ---
----S. 13(e) ---Arms Rules, 1924, R.43 ---Unlicensed possession of arms ---Petitioner's licensed
pistol was stolen on 21 -6-2000 from his car which was in use and control of his brother on
the day of occu rrence ---Matter was reported to police which entered the alleged occurrence in
daily diary ---Petitioner in May, 2007 came to know that his lost pistol had been recovered by
police and the person was booked under section 13(e) of West Pakistan Arms Ordinanc e,
1965 ---Petitioner approached the Trial Court but his application for return of licensed pistol
on superdari was rejected and Appellate Court dismissed appeal and cancelled petitioner's
licence also ---Validity ---Nothing except entry in daily diary of pol ice was placed on record to
show that petitioner took steps to find out his stolen pistol, instead, he remained silent for
years and moved the court only in 2007 ---Concerned authorities were not approached and
informed promptly and properly whereas petitio ner was required by Arms Rules, 1924 to
inform police forthwith about theft of his pistol ---Petitioner was liable to penalty under
Note(1) of conditions for issuance of licence for the breach of said Note yet Appellate Court
while cancelling his licence to ok lenient view by not imposing penalty provided by law ---
Competent authority empowered to grant or renew licence had the power to cancel or
suspend the same ---Petitioner failed to point out any law under which the order of
confiscation could be recalled ---Petitioner was surely negligent for which he had to bear the
consequences ---Petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the impugned orders ---Petition
was dismissed in circumstances.
Munir Agha for Petitioner.
Wajahat Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 19th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ---The petitioner being aggrieved of orders dated 22 -5-
2007 of Judicial Magistrate -IV, Quetta and dated 2 -6-2007 of Sessions Judge, Quetta,
whereby his applications filed for handing over of his licensed pistol on Superdari to him
were rejected and cancellation of his licence was ordered. It is his case that he is lawful and
bona fide holder of Pistol bearing No.31028181, .30 bore. Pak made, while licence was
issued in his favour on 24 -6-1990. It is his case that on 21 -6-2000 the said pistol was kept in
car belonging to him, which was on relevant date was driven by his brother namely Hasrat
Khan, Constable in Customs Department. The pistol was taken away from the car by som e
unknown persons; his brother reported the matter at Police Station City, Quetta, which was
entered in daily diary. Thereafter, in May, 2007, it came to his knowledge that said pistol was
taken into possession in a case pertaining to F.I.R. No.147 of 2000 Police Station Civil Line,
Quetta on 23 -6-2000 for offence under section 13 -E Arms Ordinance, 1965 recovered from
possession of one Amjad Sultan son of Sultan Muhammad. The case was challaned and on
conclusion of trial accused Amjad Sultan was convicted f or the offence through judgment
made on 17 -8-2000. On having knowledge about the same he approached the trial Court for
return of pistol on Superdari, but the application was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate -IV,
Quetta, through order dated 22 -5-2007, on gr ound that the pistol has already been
confiscated. He submitted application before Sessions Judge, Quetta for return of his licensed
pistol, who through order made on 2 -6-2007 not only dismissed his application, but also
ordered for cancellation of his lic ence. Being aggrieved of the same instant appeal has been
filed with contention that impugned orders are contrary to law and facts made in 'hurry
without considering the factual and legal position. As he has no knowledge about recovery of
pistol, therefore , it was not possible for him to appear before the trial Court and file
application for return of the pistol.
The petitioner while praying for setting aside of impugned orders also prayed for return of
pistol and release of licence. As per papers place d on record reveals that an F.I.R. No.147 of
2000 was registered on report of one Daulat Khan S. -I. at Police Station Civil Lines, Quetta,
wherein it has been reported that on 23 -6-2000 at 5 -50 p.m. one Amjad Sultan was
apprehended from Jinnah Road, Main G ate of Civil Hospital Quetta and on search from his
pocket one pistol bearing No.31028181 was recovered, while said accused failed to produce
any valid licence or permit, thus booked for offence under section 13 -E Arms Ordinance,
1965. On completion of inv estigation case was challaned, while on completion of trial, the
case was decided through judgment dated 17 -8-2000 by Judicial Magistrate -IV, Quetta
thereby convicted the accused and ordered for confiscation of pistol and bullets in favour of
State being u nlicenced. Thereafter, in year, 2007 the petitioner filed an application to said
Court for handing over of pistol to him on Superdagi, his request was refused by the learned
Judicial Magistrate -IV, Quetta, through order dated 22 -5-2007, whereupon he approa ched
Court of Sessions Judge, Quetta for return of pistol, as it is licenced one and belong to him.
This application was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Quetta through order dated 2 -6-
2007, thereby not only refused to return the same, but also ordered for cancellation of licence
on reasons that the petitioner has violated the terms of licence and handed over the pistol to a
person, who was not authorized, hence present petition.
The petitioner claimed himself to be lawful owner and licence holder of pistol in question,
which as per his showings was stolen from his car while in custody of his brother on 21 -6-
2000, which was reported to police by his brother which was entered in daily diary. He has
placed on record the extract from said daily diary. Th e contents of the same reveals that
brother of petitioner namely Hasrat Khan reported about misplacing of pistol from the car for
which he himself was not sure while contended that after getting complete information he
would report the matter to the Thana. Nothing else is placed on record by the petitioner from
which it can be ascertained that what next step was taken by the petitioner in respect of his
pistol allegedly stolen in year, 2000. Rather he kept silent for all these years, neither reported
the ma tter to police authorities, nor took any steps for recovery of his pistol, rather suddenly
in year, 2007 he for the first time approached the Court for return of his pistol on Superdagi.
His conduct seems to be unreasonable. In case he had actually lost hi s licenced pistol he must
have approached the concerned authorities for taking appropriate action in same respect. But
during all these years he kept silent and after lapse of seven years he approached the trial
Court for handing over possession of pistol in question being his licenced one. As per
relevant rules i.e. Arms Rules, 1924 licence for export, store, transport or possess are
described to be issued in requisite forms mentioned therein. Rule 43 describes the authorities
empowered to grant or renew t he licence, while it is further provided therein that the same
authority is empowered to cancel or suspend a licence. The perusal of these rules reveals that
specific Forms with conditions are present in Schedule -VIII attached with the rules, which
relates to licence in respect of import, export, transport or possession of different arms and
ammunition described therein. Form XVI is relevant in present case. In conditions annexed
thereto condition No.7 is relevant, which states as under: -
"7. He shall f orthwith give information at the nearest Police Station of the loss or theft of any
arms or ammunition covered by the licence."
Despite this specific condition the petitioner remained silent and did not report the fact of loss
or theft of his licenced pistol at relevant time to the Police Station, as such he has violated the
conditions of the licence, thus he can be penalized for his act as provided in Note (1) of these
conditions which states as under: --
"Note (1) Any breach of the conditions of th is licence is punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to Rs.500 or with
both."
The learned Sessions Judge, Quetta while refusing his request only ordered that as the order
of confiscation at tained finality, therefore, the pistol cannot be returned to him, while directed
for sending the licence to the concerned DCO for cancellation. The learned Judge has taken a
lenient view, as not imposing on him the penalty as provided in the petition. The competent
authority empowered to grant or renew licence have the power to cancel or p suspend the
same as mentioned -above, which in present case also to exercise legally. He further failed to
mention any specific provision of law or rule on basis of which order of confiscation can be
re-called after all these years and the pistol be handed over to him. In view of observations
made hereinabove there is surely negligence on the part of the petitioner, for which he has to
bear the consequences.
In view of above discussion the petitioner has failed to make out any case in his favour. He is
unable to point out any illegality in the impugned orders, due to which any interference is
required to be made by this Court. Instant petition is dismissed being without merits.
A.R.K./71/Q Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.