A shows that all the pistols were in working order and the cartridges were live.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case in that in the evening of April 23, 1991 a police party, while on patrol duty in and around Palam Village, found the appellant standing near the bus stand with a bag in his possession.
The appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges levelled against him and his companytention was that he was falsely implicated in the case at the instance of S.I. Sube Singh.
As his movements aroused suspicion they apprehended him and searched the bag, which was found to companytain 8 companyntry made pistols and 31 live cartridges.
PW5/A. Const.
Bhim Singh PW 3 .
To prove the apprehension of the appellant and recovery of the and ammunitions from his possession the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of Const.
They next spoke about the packaging and sealing of those arms and ammunitions.
The appellant was placed on trial before the Designated Court New Delhi to answer charges under Sections 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act.
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months more but numberseparate sentence was passed for the other companyviction.
They also testified that a recovery memo was prepared and signed by them.
A First Information Report was thereafter lodged against the appellant at Dabri Police Station and S.I. Sube Singh took up investigation of the case.
Const.
As the appellant companyld number give any satisfaction explanation for possession of those arms and ammunitions, they were seized under a recovery memo and the packaged and sealed.
Both of them stated that they were members of the police party that was on patrol duty on the date in question.
1987 TADA for short and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Ramesh Kumar PW 2 .
Bhim Singh PW 4 proved the sanction accorded by Deputy Commissioner of Police under section 39 of the Arms Act which was marked by PW4/A. Head Const.
Const.
Bhim Singh PW 4 testified that on May 3, 1991 he had taken the sealed parcels form the Malkhana of Dabri Police Station to CFSL and delivered them in fact.
The report of CFSL Ext.
Khush Ram PW 5 who was the Duty Officer of Dabri Police Station on April 23, 1 991 proved the FIR Ex.
They detailed the manner in which the appellant was apprehended at the bus stand with a bag in his possession and spoke about the recovery of the companyntry made pistols and the cartridges from that bag.
Hencc this appeal.
On companypletion of investigation and receipt of sanction from the deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi to prosecute the appellant under section 25 of the Arms Act he submitted charge sheet against the appellant.
Having carefully gone through the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, two of the members of the raiding party, we do number find any reason to disbelieve them, more particularly when numberhing companyld be elicited in cross examination to discredit them.
On the companytrary, their evidence is companysistent and companyroborates each other.
Jasbir Singh PW 6 proved that the arms and ammunitions seized were deposited in the Malkhana of the police station and were forwarded to the CFSL from there through Const.
Jagpal Singh PW 1 and Head Const.
