( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocate Shri S. B. Raval appearing for the petitioner.

( 2 ) RULE. Learned A. P. P. , Mrs. B. R. Gajjar waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department dated 7-5-1997 rejecting the Revision application of the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE present petitioner was holding a licence to possess a pistol of 25 Bore issued vide No. SNR III 300/74 dated 9-4-1992 for the entire territory of India. It was alleged that on 26-3-1991, the petitioner has fired said pistol in the air around 12. 30 noon near his residential premises during the incident and thereby an offence was registered against the petitioner under S. 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959; that said offence was registered vide c. R. No. 43 of 1991 at Joravarnagar Police Station, District Surendranagar; that thereafter the District Magistrate-respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice dated 5-9-1991 to the petitioner as to why said licence to hold arms should not be cancelled and fixed the hearing on 5/9th September, 1991; that said notice could not be served to the petitioner before the due date and thereby time was extended to 27th June, 1992; that the respondent No. 2 received a written reply from the petitioner dated 23rd January, 1992 but the petitioner did not remain present before the respondent No. 2 during the hearing. The respondent No. 2 considered the written reply of the petitioner and rejected all the contentions raised therein and also cancelled the licence of the petitioner to possess pistol as described vide said order dated 22-4-1992.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the above said order passed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner preferred Revision Application dated 30-5-1992 before the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat; that said Revision application was heard and decided by the respondent No. 3 vide impugned order dated 7th May, 1997, the respondent No. 3 has rejected the Revision Application of the present petitioner.

( 6 ) SHRI S. B. Raval, learned Advocate appearing before me for the petitioner has taken me through the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar passed in the matter of Sessions Case No. 73 of 1991 which is produced on record vide pages 21 to 26 of the compilation; that according to the said order the present petitioner is acquitted of all charges made against them in the criminal case for the offence made punishable under S. 307 and 34 of I. P. C. and also under the Arms act; that learned Additional Sessions Judge directed to entrust the Muddammal pistol with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar.

( 7 ) MR. Raval has invited my attention to the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Arms act, 1959; that proviso to Sec. 17 (7) is as under :"17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licence,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence : provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. "that according to proviso to Sec. 17 (7) of the Act, the revocation of licence issued to the present petitioner has become void, and thereby, the petitioner has become eligible to apply and hold a valid licence.

( 8 ) LEARNED A. P. P. Mrs. B. R. Gajjar has failed to point out any provision contrary to the abovestated provisions of the Arms Act, however, she has vehemently urged that the petitioner ought to have produced the judgment and order of the learned additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar whereby he is acquitted of the offence under S. 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under the Arms Act as well