ORDER Ashok Bhushan, J. – Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed, challenging the judgment dated 11.1.2017 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by which the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying for quashing the FIR No. 47 of 2011 dated 29.04.2011 under Section 25/30 of the Arms Act has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding this appeal are : The appellant accused is resident of Panchkula, State of Haryana. The appellant alongwith his brother Gurpreet Singh owns a three storey house, namely, Dimple Cottage at Shimla in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The appellant had initially given a Power of Attorney to his brother Gurpreet Singh to look after his house property at Shimla which Power of Attorney was cancelled by appellant on 03.06.2010. The dispute arose between appellant and his brother in respect of the house property with regard to which brother of appellant has also filed a civil suit. The appellant visited his house property on 21.4.2011. A First Information Report was lodged by Gurinder Singh under Section 448 read with Section 34 IPC being FIR No. 41 of 2011 dated 22.4.2011 against the appellant and his wife alleging house trespass. Gurinder Singh claimed himself to be tenant on the basis of a lease dated 21.05.2010. Another incident took place on 24.04.2011 wherein certain altercations took place between wife of appellant and Harpreet Singh, Gurinder Singh and one Kavita Chaudhary. The Police Inspector visited the house, Dimple Cottage on receiving the information that certain altercation was taking place between the parties. The appellant was carrying a gun which was taken into possession by the Police Inspector on 24.04.2011 whose licence was not renewed after 23.09.2010. A First Information Report dated 29.04.2011 being FIR No. 47 of 2011 was registered against the accused under Section 25/30 of the Arms Act 1954. 4. The District Magistrate also granted sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act for prosecution of the accused for commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). 5. The Appellant in the meantime had applied for renewal of his licence, giving reason for delay vide application dated 07.06.2011. 4. The District Magistrate also granted sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act for prosecution of the accused for commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). 5. The Appellant in the meantime had applied for renewal of his licence, giving reason for delay vide application dated 07.06.2011. An application was filed by Gurinder Singh Man, who had lodged an FIR against the appellant, before the District Magistrate Panchkula praying that the gun licence of appellant be not renewed. SDM recommended that the reason put forth by the appellant for not getting the licence in time is satisfactory and licence be renewed. SDM by an order dated 27.09.2011 has renewed the licence of appellant. 6. Mrs. Kavita Chaudhary and another who claimed to be tenant in Dimple Cottage filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. challenging the order of the SDM Panchkula dated 27.9.2011. The High Court on the said application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. although held that applicants had no locus standi to challenge the renewal of the licence, however, made certain adverse observations against the appellant in its order dated 03.11.2011, disposing of the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 7. Taking note of the order of the High Court, Dy. Commissioner Panchkula vide its order dated 02.03.2012 suspended the arm licence of the appellant. Against the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner on 02.03.2012, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Circle Ambala by the appellant which appeal was allowed by the Commissioner setting aside the order of the Dy. Commissioner. The Commissioner also held that in view of the report of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, arms of the appellant shall be kept in protective custody till the final decision of this Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3916 of 2012. 8. It is relevant to note that appellant had also filed an Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3916 of 2012, challenging the order and the judgment of the High Court dated 03.11.2011, which was allowed by the judgment dated 26.03.2014 of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 691 of 2014, setting aside the order of the High Court. 9. On the basis of the FIR No. 41 of 2011 under Section 448 read with 34 IPC a Criminal Case No. 1032 of 2011 proceeded against the appellant. 9. On the basis of the FIR No. 41 of 2011 under Section 448 read with 34 IPC a Criminal Case No. 1032 of 2011 proceeded against the appellant. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its judgment and order dated 26.12.2015 has acquitted the appellant and his wife with the charge under Section 448 read with Section 34 IPC. The said judgment is not stated to be challenged. 10. Now, reverting back to FIR dated 29.04.2011 lodged against the appellant under Section 25/30, the said First Information Report was challenged by filing the application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by the appellant being Criminal M. O. No. 207 of 2012 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. 11. It was contended before the High Court that Arms licence of the gun having been renewed the FIR be quashed. The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.01.2017 rejected the application of the appellant under Section 482 Cr. P. C, aggrieved by which judgment this appeal has been filed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal contends that the provisions of the Section 21 and Section 25 of the Act could not have been invoked against the appellant since there was no unnecessary delay in depositing the arm. Referring to Rule 54 of 1962 Rules, it is contended that the offence shall be committed only when after refusal of renewal or revocation of licence the Arm is not deposited. He submits that when the delay for non deposit of arm has already been condoned by the District Magistrate by renewing the arm licence, the application under Section 482 filed by the appellant deserved to be allowed quashing the prosecution. 13. Learned counsel further submits that it is at the instance of the brother of the appellant with whom dispute pertaining to house property is going on, Complainant Gurinder Singh Man had filed the FIR No. 41 of 2011 in which the appellant had already been acquitted. It is submitted that it is not the case of any one that appellant has used his gun or committed any offence with the gun. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submission of the appellant contends that the High court has rightly rejected the application under Section 482 Cr. It is submitted that it is not the case of any one that appellant has used his gun or committed any offence with the gun. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent refuting the submission of the appellant contends that the High court has rightly rejected the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. He submitted that merely because gun licence has been renewed it shall not wash out the offence committed by appellant on 24.04.2011 on which date the appellant was possessing the gun, even after, the expiry of the Arms Licence. 15. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Section 25 of the Act provides for certain punishment for offences. 15. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Section 25 of the Act provides for certain punishment for offences. Section 25 (1B), which is relevant for present case is quoted as below: "(1B) Whoever- (a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or (b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or (c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the name of the maker, manufacturer's number or other identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon as required by subsection (2) of section 8 or does any act in contravention of subsection (1) of that section; or (d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section; or (e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 9; or (f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 10; or (g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 12; or (h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by subsection (2) of section 3, or subsection (1) of section 21; or (i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section 44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises or other place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [one year] but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [one year]." 16. Section 30 provides for punishment for contravention of licence or rule. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that offence alleged against the appellant is offence under Section 25 (1B) (h) i.e. failing to deposit the arms or ammunitions as required by sub-section (1) of Section 21. 17. He submits that by reading of Section 21(1), it is clear that when possession of any arm by a person, ceased to be lawful, he shall without unnecessary delay deposit the same either with the officer incharge of the nearest Police Station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed with the licence dealer. Section 21(1), which is relevant for the present case is quoted as below: "21. Deposit of arms, etc., on possession ceasing to be lawful.-(1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, in consequence of the expiration of the duration of a licence or of the suspension or revocation of a licence or by the issue of a notification under section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful, shall without unnecessary delay deposit the same either with the officer incharge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licensed dealer or where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury. Explanation .-In this subsection "unit armoury" includes an armoury in a ship or establishment of the Indian Navy." 18. Learned counsel submits that 'unnecessary delay in depositing the arm is a sine qua non for alleging any offence against a person under Section 21(1)'. He submits that in renewing the licence, delay having been condoned no offence can be said to have been committed by the appellant. 19. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have looked into the provisions of the 'Act' and Rules 1969. 20. Section 3(1) is also relevant for the present case, which is as follows: "3. 19. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have looked into the provisions of the 'Act' and Rules 1969. 20. Section 3(1) is also relevant for the present case, which is as follows: "3. Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition.- [(1)] No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that a person may, without himself holding a licence, carry any firearms or ammunition in the presence, or under the written authority, of the holder of the licence for repair or for renewal of the licence or for use by such holder." 21. Section 25 (1B)(a) and (h) both provide for different conditions for an offence which is punishable under the provision. The fact that the licence has been renewed, may be relevant in reference to Section 21 (1) read with Section 25 (1B)(h) but offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 21 and 25 (1B) (a) independently stands. 22. We are thus of the view that by mere renewal of the licence of the appellant, the offence which is alleged on 24.04.2011 cannot be held to be washed out. 23. We have noticed above, that the dispute is between the appellant, his brother and the alleged tenants who were inducted by his brother with regard to three storey house property, namely, Dimple Cottage at Shimla. The case under Section 448 read with Section 438 IPC, the alleging criminal trespass has already been decided in favour of the appellant by judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 26.12.2015 as noted above. 24. On 24.04.2011, it is not the case of the prosecution or any one that appellant used his gun for any purpose, what was alleged was that the appellant was possessing the gun whose licence had already expired on 23.09.2010. It has also been noticed that the renewal of the licence was opposed by Gurinder Singh Man who had lodged an FIR against the appellant on 22.04.2011 by filing application in writing. An application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was also filed in the High Court challenging the order of SDM renewing the licence. The High Court had made adverse observations against the appellant. An application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was also filed in the High Court challenging the order of SDM renewing the licence. The High Court had made adverse observations against the appellant. The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court where this Court on 26.03.2014 held as follows: "Leave granted. In our opinion, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained insofar as it records adverse comments against the appellant. Having concluded that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not have any locus standi to file petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same could have been disposed on that ground alone. However, the High Court unnecessarily made observations which are likely to adversely affect the appellant. In view of the above, the observations made and the directions contained in the penultimate paragraphs of the impugned judgment and order against the appellant are set aside. With these observations, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent." 25. When in spite of opposition by Gurinder Singh Man and other alleged tenants with whom there was a dispute, the arm licence was renewed, we are of the view that at this distance of time allowing the prosecution to continue shall only be undue harassment of the appellant, more so when the offence alleged against the appellant was only possession of arm whose licence had expired, which licence has subsequently been renewed also. 26. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that prosecution against the appellant initiated by FIR dated 29.04.2011 under Section 25/30 of the Arms Act deserved to be set aside. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.