1000/ and in default of payment of fines to undergo further R1 for two months.
PW 1 is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR Ex.
The parcel companytaining the companyntry made pistol was later on sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the Ballistic Expert opined that the 12 bore companyntry made pistol was a fire arm as defined in the Arms Act 1959 and was found to be in a working order.
The evidence of Didar Singh PW 4, is also companyroborated by ASI Diwani Ram PW 6 and Inspector Sukhbir Singh PW 7, Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of any of these witnesses to show as to why they should falsely depose against the appellant.
At about 4.30 p. m. the riot was at a pitch and stones and other missiles were hurled on the members of the opposite side from Idgah Road Nawab Road of Sadar Bazar by the rioters.
According to the prosecution case on 14 11 1990, a mob companylected at Gurdwara Sis Ganj Sahib in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and moved in a procession towards the Idgah Park.
It also transpires from his evidence that because of provocative speeches made at Idgah Park companymunal rioting had ensued and brickbats, stones and other missiles were being hurled at the opposite party from the rioting mob present at the Idgah Road.
The report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory with the opinion of the Expert was received on 27 12 1990.
Since, the place from where the appellant was arrested along with the unauthorised fire arm fell in the area Notified under TADA, the investigating agency after obtaining the statutory sanction registered a case against the appellant for the offender under Section 5 TADA.
PW 4, Inspector Didar Singh was the SHO of the area at the relevant time and was present at the spot along with the police force.
The appellant was then handed over to SI Sukhbir Singh PW 7 who arrested him in the riot case and later on formally arrested him in a case under Section 27 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a companyntry made pistol without any authority also.
With a view to companynect the appellant with the crime, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
1996 3 SCR 757 The Judgment was delivered by DR.
It was he who took the ruqa from PW 4 to the police station for registration of the formal FIR.
The appellant was apprehended by SI Didar Singh SHO PW 4, who caught him along with the pistol.
PW 1/A Sealed parcel companytaining the companyntry made pistol was taken from the Moharar Head Constable Malkhana PW 3 to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory by PW 2.
After the arrest of the appellant, the companyntry made pistol was seized from his possession and sealed into a parcel which was kept with the Moharar Head Constable Malkhana PW 3.
A ruqa was sent by ASI Diwani Ram PW 6 to SI Ishwar Chand PW 1 who registered the FIR and companyy of the FIR was sent to SI Sukhbir Singh PW 7.
These three witnesses are of a formal nature.
Constable Mahabir Singh PW 5, fully companyroborated the statement of Inspector Didar Singh PW 4 in all material particulars.
ANAND DR.
The appellant was supporting the mob of rioters and was found holding a companyntry made pistol in his hand and waiving it in the air.
ANAND, J. The appellant calls in question his companyviction and sentence for an offence under Section 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act,1987 hereinafter referred to as TADA recorded by the Designated Court II, Delhi on 1st of August 1995 through this appeal under Section 19 of TADA.
The police party made some arrests.
