Judgment

Nanvati, J.-The appellant has been convicted by the Designated Court. Sangrur, in Special Sessions Case No. 75 of 1992 (Sessions Trial No. 265 of 1994) under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven­tion) Act, 1987. He has filed this appeal challenged his conviction and order of sentence passed against him.

2. What is held proved by the Designated Court against the appellant is that he has found in possession of a Double Barrel Gun bearing No. 294 without a permit/ licence to possess the same. The Designated Court believed the evidence of Head Constable Mall Singh (PW 2) and A.S.I. Baldev Singh (PW 3) both of whom were the members of the police party which had intercepted the appellant and had found the appellant in possession of the said gun. They have stated in their evidence that the gun was in working condition. It was that type of gun in which gun powder is required to be filled in first before it could be fired. They were not cross-examined as regards working condition of the gun.

3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the identity of the gun was not established and no evidence of an e