A secret information was received that the appellant was in possession of huge quantity of unlicenced arms and ammunition.
The case of the prosecution is on 27 1 89 a police party headed by ASI Dilbagh Singh companysisting of Head Constable Balwant Singly and other police officials was present in the area of Railway crossing Chhebarta.
bore along with 60 live cartridges of the same bore under bricks lying near the main gate of the house.
This statement of the accused was attested by Head Constable Balwant Singh and Chaukidar Shingara Singh.
However, chaukidar was given up since he was won over by the appellant.
In support of his defence he also examined DW 1.
bore along with 60 cartridges were recovered after digging out some bricks.
The prosecution examined PW2 armourer, the investigating officer PW3 and eye witness PW4.
In as much as he did number have a valid licence, he was proceeded against under Section 5 of TADA.
Acting on this statement, the pistol of 9 m.m.
The case of the appellant as found in the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC was that he had been falsely implicated.
A raid was companyducted.
He made a statement to the effect that he kept companycealed one pistol of 9 m.m.
The accused appellant was taken into custody.
The learned judge of the Designated Court on weighing the evidence came to the companyclusion that the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant in the evidence including the delay in sending the fire arm to test whether it was in working companydition would number in any manner affect the credibility of the prosecution case.
Mohan and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.
The appellant took trial under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 for short TADA read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.
