The panchnama was prepared and charge sheet was lodged.
The prosecution case is that on October 18, 1986, Hari Chand PW 2 accosted the appellant and recovered from him an unlicensed firearm.
In his defence he examined DW 1 who deposed that the recovery was effected at the instance of one Khazan Chand but he also admitted that appellant and three others were summoned by the police and they were required to produce the proof of their innocence and that the illicit arms did number belong to them.
This defence is held to be an afterthought and the Designated Court has given ample reasons for rejecting the same.
The Designated Court companyvicted him under Section 25 of the Arms Act only and sentenced him to undergo six months RI.
RAJARAM v. STATE OF M.P. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act.
The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 5 1 of the TADA Act and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
