HYDERABAD, April 4: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, on Friday directed the in charge Fire Arms Bureau (FAB) to return two weapons, i.e. a double barrel gun and a 32-bore Spanish pistol or of equivalent-make, to the satisfaction of the petitioner.

The order was passed on a constitutional petition, filed by Syed Gul Hassan Shah, seeking return of his two weapons which were deposited by him with the Digri police during the MRD movement but that were misappropriated by the police.

The court also directed the home department to renew the arm licenses with rules after waiving the fine, if any, and added that the process should be completed within 15 days.

The petitioner told the court that through a notice the then district magistrate, Tharparkar, had cancelled his arms licenses for his three weapons — a gun, a rifle and a pistol — on the ground that the petitioner had indulged in activities prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity.

He said that he had complied with the district magistrate’s directive and deposited the weapons with the Digri police. Then he challenged the said order through a constitutional petition before the court in 1987. The Sindh High Court through an order dated October 26, 1987 had set aside the order, cancelling his arms licenses.

On a representation, seeking return of the weapons, the district magistrate, Tharparkar, directed that the arms of the petitioner should be returned to him. However, the police concerned did not restore/return the weapons to him. The district magistrate told him that his two arms had been misappropriated dishonestly by the police head constable, Abdul Razzaq, in charge malkhana Mirpurkhas, and that a case had been lodged against him.

The petitioner was, however, supplied duplicate arms license by the then district magistrate.

He approached the home department for redressal of his grievance and restoration of his misappropriated arms. The secretary, Home department, allowed the application of the petitioner considering it to be valid and genuine through an order dated December 9, 1993.

However, the in charge, FAB, did not return the weapons despite repeated correspondence.

He prayed the court to direct the in charge, FAB, to implement the order of the district magistrate and issue directives to the respondents to restore/renew arms licenses for the pistol and gun to him.

The in charge, FAB, in his comments said that he had not received the copy of the order of the district magistrate and only came to know about it after receiving the notice of the high court.