' One Amir Abdullah Khan got recorded F.I.R. No,254 dated 26-10-1997 at Police Station Kaloor Kot District Bhakkar under section 324 Pakistan Penal Code with the allegation that on 25-10-1997 at evening time he was returning to his house alongwith Hameed Ullah Khan and Hafiz Gul Sher P.Ws.
After purchasing the articles. When they reached near the Dera of Muhammad Zaman petitioner- accused they were surprised by him who issued the threats to them that he would teach them the lesson for prosecuting the murder case pertaining to Abdul Ghaffar. Thereafter, Muhammad Zaman petitioner-accused is said to have made the firing with 30 bore pistol upon the aforesaid P.Ws. Who were saved as they took the Shelter behind the trees. The cause of occurrence is that Amir Abdullah Khan complainant prosecuted the murder case pertaining to Aziz Ullah and Abdul Ghaffar deceased persons.
2. The Superintendent of Police Bhakkar sent Letter No,1302, dated 15-1-1998 to the District Magistrate Bhakkar for the cancellation of licence No,506 issued in the name of Muhammad Zaman petitioner-accused which was collected by the police during the investigation. The District Magistrate Bhakkar passed the order on 2-2-1998 for the issuance of show cause notice under section 12(1)(a) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 to the petitioner for the cancellation of licence. On the fixed date i.e, 3-3-1998 Muhammad Zaman Khan petitioner-accused of the aforesaid F.I.R.
Appeared when the District Magistrate had gone to Sargodha to attend the meeting. The case was adjourned to 13-4-1998 on which date nobody appeared.
3. On 31-3-1998 Muhammad Zaman petitioner filed this writ petition to obtain the relief that the issuance on notice dated 3-2-1998 by the District Magistrate Bhakkar may be declared to be pre- mature, illegal, unjust, unlawful, mala fide and as such the same may be set aside. He contended in the writ ' petition that he was involved in a false criminal case at the behest of the police due to the filing of Habeas Corpus Petition No, 1195-H of 1997. He maintained that without the decision of the criminal case the impugned notice was nothing but a revengeful act. The S.H.O. Police Station Kaloor Kot, District Bhakkar has been arrayed as respondent No,2.
4. In his comments the District Magistrate has expressed that it was on the letter received from the Superintendent Police Bhakkar that the proceedings in the matter have been initiated and notice about the cancellation of the arms licence has been issued to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Advocate- General and gone through the record before me.
6. Before proceeding further I would like to reproduce as under section 12 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965:- "12. Cancellation and suspension of Licences.--(1) Any Licence may be cancelled or suspended:-
(a) by the officer by whom the same was granted or by any authority to which he may be subordinate, or any District Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the holder of such licence may be when, for reasons to be recorded in writing, and after giving the holder of the Licence an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cancellation or suspension, such officer, authority or Magistrate deems it necessary for the security of the public peace to cancel or suspend such Licence; or
(b) by any Judge or Magistrate before whom the holder of such Licence is convicted of any offence against this Ordinance or against the rules and Government may, by a notification in the official Gazette, cancel or suspend all or any Licensees throughout the Province or any part thereof.
(2) An appeal against an order of cancellation or suspension under clause (a) of subsection (a) of subsection (1) may be made by the person whose Licence has been cancelled or suspended to the immediate official superior to the authority making the order, within sixty days of the receipt by him a copy of the order where appeal lies to Government and where appeal lies to any other authority within thirty days of the receipt by him of a copy of the order."
' The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a case of ineffective firing the proceedings for cancellation of the arms licence issued in the name of Muhammad Zaman petitioner have been initiated even though the case is false, the challan has not been submitted and the trial has not started-not to speek of its final conclusion. He added that countless cases of instant nature are pending disposal in whole of the province of Punjab, that Muhammad Zaman petitioner has been singled out in the matter of cancellation of the licence of fire-arm to whom discriminatory treatment is being afforded which is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. On the contrary the learned Assistant Advocate-General conceded that the issuance of notice for cancellation of the arms licence from the name of Muhammad Zaman petitioner is pre-mature in view of the circumstances and the facts pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. With the material before this Court and the concession given by the learned Assistant Advocate-General this writ petition has to be accepted. However, for the sake of academic discussion I would express that had the State contested the petition, even then the petitioner would have succeeded in the matter of obtaining the proposed relief. It is matter of common knowledge that innumerable cases of not only that of ineffective firing but that of actual firing from the licensed fire arms are pending in the province of the Punjab. It is perhaps the only instance wherein without the conclusion of the trial the notice for cancellation of the licence to keep the fire arm has been issued by the District Magistrate Bhakkar. It is violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of 1973 according to which "all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of Law". The Superintendent working in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate Bhakkar has not brought any material except the letter of the Superintendent of Police Bhakkar and the copy of the F.I.R. To justify the issuance of the notice under section 12(1)(a) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. It shall be instructive to express that the matters are to be disposed of keeping in view the shape of scale of justice. Such type of pre-mature orders not only are violative of law, the same also offend the legal ethics which have to be followed by all the Authorities in the Province. My view is that some influential person is at the back of the initiation of the impugned proceedings which cannot be sustained and cannot remain in field. The notice is simply pre-mature. However, at the appropriate stage, if there would be factual and legal justification the District Magistrate Bhakkar can proceed.
7. For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition with costs and set aside order dated 2- 2-1998 about the issuance of the notice to the petitioner under section 12(1) (a) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.