As the appellant did number have any licence for possessing a fire arm and live cartidges, he came to be challenged and then prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
This companyduct made Sohan Singh suspicious and, therefore, he went near him, searched him and found that he was carrying a single barrel rifle.
The Designated Court believed the evidence of PW 3 and companyvicted the appellant.
The prosecution examined Sohan Singh PW 3 to prove its case and also supported the charge by examining other witnesses.
