V.K.MEHROTRA
Ram Kripal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
V.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. The matter has been heard further today. As jointly prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, I proceed to decide it finally.
2. The petitioner owned a S.B.B.L. 12 Bore Gun No. 1628 covered by a licence issued to him under the provisions of the Arms Act bearing No. 5466. The licence was valid till April 23, 1979. In the normal course the petitioner should have applied for its renewal within the prescribed period but he failed to do so as, according to him, he was suffering from some disease for the treatment whereof he had gone away to Calcutta and came back to Allahabad only after about two years. As such, he made the application for renewal of licence on January 30, 1981. He also filed an affidavit before the District Magistrate who is the licensing authority in which he mentioned the aforesaid circumstance. In paragraph 4 of this affidavit, the petitioner also stated that in case any penalty was to be imposed upon him for making the application for renewal with delay, he was prepared to pay the same. The District Magistrate obtained a report from the Police Station Sarai Inayat All
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.