1. ' 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 some 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 for 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 ground 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 licence. 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.
2. ' The petitioner while praying for setting aside of impugned orders also prayed for return of pistol and release of licence. As per papers placed 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 Gate 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 investigation 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 unlicenced. 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 approached 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.
3. The petitioner claimed himself to be lawful owner and licence holder of pistol in question, which as per his showings was A 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. The 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.
4. 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 matter 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 his 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.
5. 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 the 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 forthwith give information at the nearest Police Station of the loss or theft of any arms or ammunition covered by the licence."
6. 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 this 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. "
7. The learned Sessions Judge, Quetta while refusing his request only ordered that as the order of confiscation attained 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 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.
8. ' 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.