In Brief
The appellant was accused of illegally possessing a firearm with an expired license under the Arms Act 1959. Although his license was subsequently renewed by the District Magistrate, the State prosecuted him under Sections 25 and 30 of the Arms Act. The High Court rejected his Section 482 petition to quash the FIR. The Supreme Court held that while license renewal does not automatically erase the offense of possession during expiry, in this case the prosecution should be quashed as an abuse of process. The accused had been acquitted in a related criminal trespass case, considerable time had elapsed, and the FIR appeared motivated by a property dispute rather than genuine enforcement concerns.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.