1. The appellant has called in question his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 5 of the Terrorists & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter 'TADA') as recorded by the learned Additional Judge of the Designated Court, Rohtak at Sonipat on 11th December, 1993.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that while S.I. Jaipal Singh was on patrol duty alongwith ASI Hari Kishan and other police officials on 16th May, 1990 he received secret information, near the High School while they were talking to Raldu, PW, that the appellant alongwith one Rajpal was sleeping in a Dharamshala situated near Rajbaha in the area of village Baroda and if a raid is conducted, the appellant could be apprehended alongwith illicit arms. On receipt of the secret information a ruka Ext. PC for registration of the case was sent by S.I. Jaipal Singh and formal FIR Ex.PC/1was registered by Moharir Head Constable Surat Singh. The police party then raided the Dharamshala. Raldu, PW was present alongwith the raid party. The appellant and Rajpal who were sleeping in the Dharamshala were over-powered. From the search of the appellant, a loaded pistol, Ext.P.1 with live cartridge Ext.P.2. was recovered. From the pocket of the kurta of the appellant, two more cartridges Exts.P.3 and P.4 were recovered. Rough sketch of the pistol was prepared and the pistol was taken into possession vide memo Ex.P8. It was made into a parcel and was sealed with the seal of 'HK'. The seal after use was handed over to Hardwari Lal. Subsequently, the pistol alongwith the recovered cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert, who found the pistol Ex.P.1 to be in working, order and submitted his report. After obtaining sanction for the prosecution of the appellant, he was sent for trial. The Designated Court after an analysis of the evidence found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 5 of TADA and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence this appeal.
3. Mr. Puri, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant submitted that the recovery of the pistol Ex.P.1 from the appellant has not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution. We cannot agree. The evidence of the members of the raid party PW.1 Hari Kishan, PW2 Raldu Ram and PW3 S.I. Jaipal Singh unmistakably discloses the manner in which the raid was conducted the recovery of the pistol Ex.P.1 loaded with live cartridge Ex.P.2 effected from the appellant. The witnesses have also deposed about the recovery of the two cartridges from the pocket of the kurta of the appellant. In spite of the witnesses being put to searching cross-examination, nothing has been elicited which may in any way cast any doubt on the correctness of their evidence. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 is consistent in so far as the recovery of the arm and ammunitions from the appellant is concerned. Their evidence has impressed us and the learned Counsel has been unable to point out any flaw in their evidence. The trial court rightly placed reliance upon their testimony. The recovery of the pistol and the cartridges from the appellant stands amply proved.
4. Mr. Puri, faced with this ever whelming prosecution evidence, submitted that the prosecution case suffered from an infirmity inasmuch as the pistol after recovery was not sealed at the spot. This argument is falsified by the evidence on the record. All the three prosecution witnesses referred to above unequivocally stated that the case property including the pistol was taken into possession and was sealed with the seal of 'HK' at the spot itself. The recovery memo prepared at the time of seizure of the weapon, also shows that the pistol and the cartridges were packed and sealed with the seal of 'HK' at the spot and the seal after use was handed over to Hardwari Lal. In the face of this evidence, the argument of the learned Counsel merits no further consideration.
5. Mr. Puri lastly submitted that the delay in the examination of the pistol by the Ballistic Expert casts a doubt on the prosecution version. This argument also needs a notice only to be rejected. After the seizure of the arm and ammunition, the same were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 12-6-1990. There has, thus, been no delay in sending of the weapon to the Ballistic Expert. The mere fact that the report of the Ballistic Expert was issued on 16th October, 1990, cannot be considered as any infirmity in so far as the prosecution is concerned particularly when the report of the Ballistic Expert shows that when the pistol alongwith the cartridges were received by him, the seal on the parcel was found intact and the same tallied with the specimen seal as per the forwarding letter.
6. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is no merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.