What is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant is that as the identity of the gun was number established and numberevidence of an expert was led to prove that it was in working companydition by test firing the same, the appellant ought number to have been companyvicted for the offences alleged against him.
He has filed this appeal Challenging his companyviction and order of sentence passed against him.
294 without a permit licence to possess the same.
What is held proved by the Designated Court against the appellant is that he was found in possession of a Double Barrel Gun bearing No.
The Designated Court believed the evidence of Head Constable Mall Singh P.W. 2 and A.S.I. Baldev Singh P.W. 3 both of whom were the members of the police party which had intercepted the appellant and had found the appellant in possession of the said gun.
265 of 1994 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act.
75 of 1992 Sessions Trial No.
They have stated in their evidence that the gun was in working companydition.
NANAVATI, J. The appellant has been companyvicted by the Designated Court, Sangrur, in Special Sessions Case No.
It was that type of gun in which gun powder is required to be filled in first before it companyld be fired.
They were number cross examined as regards working companydition of the gun.
