If the evidence of PW 2 and PW 4 is to be believed, there can be numberdoubt that the appellants were in possession of the explosive substances mentioned above.
The appellants adopted a defence line in the trial companyrt that they were actually taken into custody by the police on 19.10.1992 from their village on the basis of some suspicion that they were either terrorists or harbouring terrorists during the troublesome days in Punjab.
The two appellants have been companyvicted by a Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 for short TADA for the offence under Section 5 of TADA.
500/ each.
The companytraband articles alleged to have been recovered from them companysisted of 100 kgs.
PW1 H.C. Satpal was only a formal witness.
We heard Mr. M.S. Gujral, learned senior Advocate and Mr. Rajiv Dutta, standing Counsel for the State of Punjab.
of gun powder in 5 bags, 200 detonators, one pistol, another gun and six live cartridges.
The gist of the case against the appellants is that they were caught red handed with explosive substances during the untimely hours of 28.10.1992 i.e. around 1.00 a.m. in the night.
PW3 Nachhatar Singh was examined as the explosive expert who said that he tested the companytrabands and found them to be explosive substances.
Prosecution examined four witnesses out of whom PW2 Sukhdev Singh and PW4 Sukhdev Singh were police officers who claimed to have intercepted the two appellants with the companytraband articles.
