Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUKHMANDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sukhmander Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-8870-2006 [2007] RD-P&H 57 (8 January 2007)

C.W.P NO.8870 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO.8870 OF 2006

Date of decision : November 20, 2006

* * * * *

Sukhmander Singh ............Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab & others ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. M.L Saini, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated June 6, 2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by the District Magistrate, Faridkot and the order dated October 18, 2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot-respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner has been refused the renewal of the Arms License.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been maintained that the licence of the petitioner was valid only up to February 2, 1993 and a request for renewal from him was received only on February 23, 2005 i.e after the expiry of more than 12 years. Even then a report was called by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot and was found that the petitioner stood convicted in a case under Section 307/34 C.W.P NO.8870 OF 2006 2

IPC. Although, learned trial Judge had convicted him through a sentence of 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.500 but on an appeal on account of a compromise between the parties, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was reduced to already undergone. In these circumstances, the official respondents have maintained that the request of the petitioner for renewal of the Arms Licence was rejected.

Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the present petition be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue his further remedy in accordance with law.

Disposed of with the liberty as aforesaid.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

November 20, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.