Judgment

Nanavati, J.-This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Court of the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Jalandhar in T.D. Sessions Case No. 8/95. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. What is held proved against the appellant is that on a disclosure statement made by him 15 kgs of RDX powder, 5 detonators with some fuse wire and a sten-gun kept in a gunny bag and burried in the ground of the Handloom Centre of Village Dugri were recovered. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined amongst other witnesses P.W. 11 Radha Krishan the Investigating Officer, P.W. 10 Mukhvinder Singh and P.W. 9 Mukhtiar Singh who had acted as an independent wit­ness to the making of the disclosure statement and recovery of the articles made pursuant thereto.

3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W. 9 Mukhtiar Singh who has been examined by the prosecution as independent witness is really a police agent and on the basis of his evidence it ought not to have been hel