3.2 Mr.Saiyed, learned advocate for the petitioner, referring to the provisions of Section 17(7) of the Arms Act submitted that, the Court while convicting the petitioner had not suspended or revoked the licence of the petitioner who is holder of the licence. This fact has not been noted by the District Magistrate, Bharuch. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed further states that the District Magistrate, Bharuch, ought to have considered the order of Judicial Magistrate where the direction given to the police is to return back revolver to the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed further stated that the observations of the District Magistrate, Bharuch, is also not in accordance with the facts of the case since the dispute arose between the brothers and there is no such allegation of misusing of revolver by the petitioner; rather the petitioner was holding licence of the revolver for his business purpose, therefore, learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the police ought to have read the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate prior to expressing negative opinion before District Magistrate, Bharuch, on 04.08.2009.
