It was first companytended on behalf of the appellant that since numberindependent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged recovery of the arms and ammunitions from the appellant the Designated Court was number justified in companyvicting him relying solely upon the evidence of the two police officers.
To prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses of whom Manohar Lal P.W.1 , a clerk in the office of the District Magistrate, Amritsar, proved the sanction accorded for prosecution of the appellant under the Arms Act P.Ws.2 and 3 spoke about the arrest of the appellant and the recovery of the revolver and the cartridges from him and Sital Singh P.W.4 , an Armorer, claimed to have mechanically tested the revolver and found it in working order.
The appellant pleaded number guilty to the above accusation and his defence was that he was falsely implicated at the instance of his neighbour Sewa Singh.
Accepting their evidence the learned Judge recorded the impugned order of companyviction and sentence.
21 of 1991 companyvicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987.
K. MUKHERJEE, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated December 21, 1991 rendered by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar in Sessions Case No.
