This order shall dispose of Writ Petition No.8664 of 1991 (Abdur Rashid v. S.H.O. Etc.) and Writ Petition No.8665 of 1991 (Muhammad Saber v. S:H.O. Etc.) together as common question of law and facts arise in -these matters.
2. Learned counsel contends that petitioners were issued licences by the competent Authority to keep the weapons with them and that there was no authority vested in the respondent Police Officer to register cases against- them under section 7 of Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance, 1991.
Investigating Officer is present with record of the case. He concedes that the petitioners were the licensees to keep with them .12 bore shot guns. However, the petitioners did not get their licences renewed within time and as such cases were registered against them. Learned-counsel forcefully submits that Abdur Rashid and Muhammad Sabir did move petitions for renewal of their licences before the Illaqa Magistrate and; during the pendency of those petitions respondent Police Officer was not competent to register cases against them under the law. Learned counsel has relied upon amended rules 3 and 4 of Arms Rules, 1924. Rule 3 says that after the expiry of grace period but before the lapse of two years from the date of expiry of the licence, it may be renewed at the Post Office concerned on payment of a late fee calculated at the rate of Rs.5 for the first year and Rs.10 for the second year for every month or part of the month that intervenes between the expiry of the grace period and the date of the renewal of the licence. Rule 4 will apply in a case where two years have lapsed and the case is recommended by the District Magistrate for the renewal of the licence.
Under this rule, the competent authority is Commissioner of the Division concerned on payment of penalty calculated at the rate of Rs.5 for the first year and Rs.10 for the second year for every month or part of the month that intervenes between the expiry of the grace period and the date of renewal of the licence and such other penalty as the Commissioner may like to impose for the remaining period but it shall not in any case exceed six times the renewal fee. From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is evident that rule 3 will apply because petitions for renewal of licences were moved before the - expiry of two years. Mr. Farooq Bedar learned Additional Advocate-General does not dispute the legal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the circumstances, a direction is issued to District Magistrate, Bhakkar to entertain applications of the petitioners under rule 3 of Arms Rules, 1924 and pass the necessary orders provided the petitioners deposit the requisite fee alongwith penalty under the said rule. This shall be done within next five days without fail. On renewal of the licences, the, A Investigating Officer shall cancel the cases as warranted by law.