He, however, denied the suggestion made by the defence that he was a witness in 3 to 4 cases of Kartarpur police station.
P.W.10 Mukhvinder Singh and P.W.9 Mukhtiar Singh who had acted as an independent witness to the making of the disclosure statement and recovery of the articles made pursuant thereto.
The fact that he was having a tea stall opposite police station stands proved as a result of the admission made by Mukhtiar Singh himself.
In view of his denial and absence of any other material it is difficult to accept the companytention that the said witness was repeatedly put up as a witness by the police and thus was under the thumb of police.
It was submitted that Mukhtiar Singh had a tea stall just opposite the police station and he had also acted as witness in 3 to 4 cases as observed by the trial companyrt.
In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined amongst other witnesses P.W.11 Radha Kishan the Investigating Officer.
In his cross examination he admitted that he was a witness in one case of companyspiracy, but denied that he was a witness in any other case.
On the companytrary we find that during his cross examination he had tried to help the accused by stating that his signatures on all the documents were obtained at the police station.
What is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant is that P.W.9 Mukhtiar Singh who has been examined by the prosecution as independent witness is really a police agent and on the basis of his evidence it ought number to have been held proved that the appellant had made a statement that he had companycealed the said articles and that police had recovered the same when those articles were dug out by the appellant after taking the police to that spot.
The appellant has been companyvicted under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 read with sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 25 of the Arms Act.
Judgement pronounced by Nanavati, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Court of the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Jalandhar in T.D. Sessions Case No.
What is held proved against the appellant is that on a disclosure statement made by him 15 kgs of RDX powder, 5 detonators with some fuse wire and a steno gun kept in a gunny bag and buried in the ground of the Handloom center of Village Dugri were recovered.
