ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 5.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena in Appeal No.9/2012 (Arms), wherein challenge was made to an order passed by the District Magistrate, District Bhind dated 31.7.2012, whereby he had rejected the application for renewal of arms license No.MP/BHD/1/254/2000B issued to the petitioner on the basis of non-recommendation by the Superintendent of Police (Bhind) vide letter dated 22.12.2011 and on the delay of 28 days in filing the application and while dismissing the appeal, the order of Collector has been affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of trial against his minor brother the petitioner had moved an application for renewal of license in January, 2011. On the application, information was sought from the Superintendent of Police, who gave a wrong information that there is a case under section 307 of IPC and sections 25,27 and 30 of Arms Act. In fact, the case under section 30 of Arms Act against the petitioner, wherein he was acquitted vide judgment dated 25.5.2012 passed in case No.1204/09 and his brother was also acquitted of charges under Section 307 of IPC but instead of renewing the license the District Magistrate relying on a wrong report sent by the Superintendent of Police, rejected the application for renewal of arms license. Thereafter, the petitioner filed statutory appeal under section 18 of Arms Act before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, which had also received the same fate. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the present petition has been filed.

3. It is further submitted that the license was issued in favour of the petitioner after due verification but the order impugned has been passed in mechanical manner merely relying on an old report sent by the S.P. and even which did not contain the correct facts, as the petitioner and his brother have been separately acquitted in the criminal cases arising out of the alleged misuse of arms.

4. It is further submitted that the orders are unsustainable looing to the mandate of section 17(7) of Arms Act. As per this provision, even when the license is suspended or cancelled as a result of conviction, as soon as the conviction is set aside, the suspension or revocation is automatically reversed, but in the present case only the trial was pending and later on there was acquittal of the petitioner and his brother is separate trials.

5. So far as the delay of 28 days in filing the application is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that due to illness of the petitioner he could not prefer the application within time. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and others v. Gobardhan Sao reported in 2002(1) CTC 769; wherein the apex Court has observed that Courts should not proceed with a tendency of finding faults with the cause shown rather a liberal construction should be taken by the Courts in the issue of limitation. Relevant para of that judgement is produced herein below:-

"Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 5 of the Act or Order 22 rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependant upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. But one thing is clear that the Courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished