IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Evidence of police officials, after careful scrutiny, if inspires, confidence and is found reliable and trustworthy, if can form basis of conviction.
2. Conscious possession of an unlicenced fire-arm, which answers the discription of an arm under the Arms Act, in a Notified Area attracts punishment under Section 5 of TADA Act.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Anand, J.-The appellant calls in question his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA) recorded by the Desginated Court II, Delhi on 1st of August 1995 through this appeal under Section 19 of TADA.

2 According to the prosecution case on 14.11.1990, a mob collected at Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and moved in a procession towards the Idgah Park. A meeting was going on in Idgah Park where some provocative speeches were made by some of the speakers leading to communal riots. At about 4.30 p.m. the riot was at a pitch and stones and other missiles, were hurled on the members of the opposite side from Idgah Road - Nawab Road of Sadar Bazar by the rioters. The appellant was supporting the mob of rioters and was found holding a country made pistol in his hand and waiving it in the air. The police party made some arrests. The appellant was apprehended by SI Didar Singh SHO PW4, who caught him alongwith the pistol. The appellant was then handed over to SI Sukhbir Singh PW7 who arrested him in the riot case and later on formally arrested him in a case under Section 27 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a country made pistol without any authority also. A ruqa was sent by ASI Diwani Ram PW6 to SI Ishwar Chand PW1 who registered the FIR and copy of the FIR was sent to SI Sukhbir Singh PW7. After the arrest of the appellant, the country made pistol was seized from his possession and sealed into a parcel which was kept with the Moharar Head Constable (Malkhana) PW3. The parcel containing the country made pistol was lateron sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the Ballistic Expert opined that the 12 bore country made pistol was a fire arm as defined in the Arms Act 1959 and was found to be in a working order. The report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory with the opinion of the Expert was received on 27.12.1990. Since, the place from where the appellant was arrested alongwith the unauthorised fire arm fell in the area Notified under TADA, the investigating agency after obtaining the statutory sanction registered a case against the appellant for the offence under Section 5 TADA. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was sent up for trial before the Designated Court and on conviction for an offence under Section 5 of TADA, was sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months.

3. With a view to connect the appellant with the crime, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW1 is the duty officer who recorded the formal FIR Ex. PW1/A. Sealed parcel containing the country made pistol was taken from the Moharar Head Constable Malkhana PW3 to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory by PW2. These three witnesses are of a formal nature.

4. PW4, Inspector Didar Singh was the SHO of the area at the relevant time and was present at the spot alongwith the police force. From the evidence of Inspector Didar Singh PW4, it clearly emerges that the appellant was apprehended at the spot at about 4.30 p.m. on 14.11.1990 and at that time he was found holding a country made pistol in his hand and waiving it in the air. It also transpires from his evidence that because of provocative speeches made at Idhag Park communal rioting had ensued and brickbats, stones and other missiles were being hurled at the opposite party from the rioting mob present at the Idgah Road. Constable Mahabir Singh PW5, fully corroborated the statement of Inspector Didar Singh PW4 in all material particulars. It was he who took the ruqa from PW4 to the police station for registration of the formal FIR. The evidence of Didar Singh PW4, is also corroborated by ASI Diwani Ram PW6 and Inspector Sukhbir Singh PW7. Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of any of these witnesses to show as to why they