JUDGMENT

R.M. Sahai; J. - This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short the TADA Act) directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Kaithal (Haryana), raises three questions of law, one, whether a person can be prosecuted under Section 5 of the TADA Act for recovery of arms on his showing, two, whether the arms and ammunition which are recovered from the possession should be serviceable and live in order to attract Section 5 and last, on whom the burden lies to prove that the arms and ammunition were such as was contemplated by Section 5 of the Act.

2. The appellant was prosecuted under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 5 of the TADA Act. According to the prosecution when interrogation of the appellant was going on in a dacoity case in connection with FIR No. 370 on 24.11.1990, the accused made a disclosure statement telling the Inspector that he had kept burried one pistol and two cartridges of 12 bore by the side of the Kotha of Raj Kumar and Siwan Kaithal Road. On his statement the aforesaid pistol and the cartridges are stated to have been recovered on 14.2.1