respondent No.3 in the prescribed application form which is produced at (page 33-37). Moreover, as regards another offence under CR No.145/2003, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he was acquitted from the said offence in the year 2005 itself and since said case was not pending, it was not disclosed in column No.18 of the said prescribed form page 36. As regards third crime i.e. CR No.65/2008, petitioner submitted on oath that he got knowledge of registration of said offence in May, 2009 and respondents have not denied the same on oath, since respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply in the present application. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that section 6 of the aforesaid Act prescribes that the persons who are convicted for the offences mentioned therein are not eligible for license and mere registration of offence is not contemplated thereunder. Apparently, it appears that, there is substance in the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, also impugned order dated 13.4.2010 which was communicated to petitioner on 17.4.2010 by respondent No.2 also
