The prosecution case was that on 17 7 1990 a police party companyprising ASI Jangir Singh and Constable Chamkaur Singh as also a few others while patrolling the area close to village Namol in the State of Punjab found the appellant moving in suspicious circumstances and when intercepted was found to be in possession of a companyntry made pistol of 12 bore along with two live cartridges one of which was in the barrel of the weapon, those being carried unauthorisedly.
The appellant pleaded number guilty and claimed trial in the Designated Court, which took companynizance of the offence, recorded statements of ASI Jangir Singh PW 1 and Constable Chamkaur Singh PW 2 who narrated the version of the prosecution on lines aforementioned.
The Designated Court having believed the version of these two witnesses companyvicted the appellant for the offence charged and imposed on him a sentence of rigorous imprisonment as imposable to the minimum i.e. for five years RI.
On these facts, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence recorded by the prosecution as also the judgment under appeal.
The pistol was said to be loaded with a live cartridge.
That companydition would presume that it was in working order.
The prosecution companyld number produce Head Constable Jagdish Raj, Head Armourer who had tested the recovered weapon because on the date of the trial he was dead.
The other companyment offered by the appellants learned Counsel is that it companyld number be companyclusively proved that the pistol was in a working order.
Even so obtaining their companynter signatures on the documents already prepared would number have lent any further credence to the prosecution version.
2,000/ , in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
and payment of fine of Rs.
