Section 13 (e) Weapons Rules, 1924, R43 The unlicensed possession of a weapon was stolen from a car by a petitioner's licensed pistol 212 2000, which was reported to the police in this case on the day of the incident in May 2007 The alleged importation of the diary petitioner revealed that the police had recovered his lost pistol and that the person has been booked under Section 13 (e) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, the petitioner referred to the trial court but The petitioner's return of the licensed pistol at Supdtri was rejected and the appellate court dismissed the appeal and the applicant's license. The same has been canceled. Nothing was recorded except to enter the police's daily diary to show that the applicant had taken steps to detect his stolen pistol, instead he remained silent for several years and in 2007 only in court. I approached. The relevant authorities were not immediately and properly informed, while the applicant was required to notify the police through the Arms Rules 1924. On the theft of his pistol, the applicants were bound by the terms of the license issued for breach of the terms under Note (1), but the Appellate Court has now revoked its license by a lawful authority. Demonstrated flexibility in not imposing fines. The grant or renewal license had the power to revoke or suspend the same petitioner, under which the petition for reversal of the forfeiture order was certainly negligent, for which he had to suffer. That the applicant had any illegal identification
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
