Judgment

Nanavati, J.-The appellant has been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Designat­ed Court, Sangrur. What has been held proved against the appellant is that he was found in possession of one sten-gun bearing No. 13303 and two magazines containing in all 12 live cartridges. The Designated Court relying upon the evidence of Inspector Gurmel Singh, P.W. 2 and A.S.I. Amrik Singh, P.W. 3 held that the appellant was found in pos­session of that sten-gun and 12 live cartridges. The Designated Court also relied upon the evidence of P.W. 4 Ram Prakash and held that the said sten-gun was in working condition and that the said cartridges were live.

2. What was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant could not have been tried again for possession of sten-gun and 12 live cartridges as in Spcl. Session Case No. 5/95 when he was tried along with other accused the question of possession of sten-gun was also considered and the prosecution evidence in that behalf was not believed. In our opinion this contention is thoroughly misconceived