(1) THIS appeal under S. 16 ofthe Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prvention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred bythe appellant to challenge his conviction under S. 25 ofthe Arms Act read with S. 6 ofthe Act andthe sentence of RI for two years and fine of Rs. 500.00 awarded therefor.

(2) THE prosecution case was that duringthe early hours of 7/04/1986 Le. at about 3.15 or 3.30 a.m. Public Witness 4 Sub-inspector Tika Ram along with Head Constable Public Witness 3 Hans Raj and other policemen were doing Nakabandi nearthe culvert of a canal in village Ghudwali. At that time they sawthe appellant coming alongthe road but when he tried to retrace his steps on seeingthe police party, they gave chase to him and apprehended him.the appellant was having a M.L. Gun (Ex. P-1 and 6 topis (caps) Exs. P-3 to P-8 and a plastic vial (Ex. P-9 containing about 25 grams of gunpowder. He had no licence for carryingthe firearm and could not offer any explanation for his possession ofthe firearm andthe caps and gunpowder. He was, therefore arrested and later charged under Section 25 ofthe Arms Act read with S. 6 ofthe Act.

(3) THE prosecution examined four witnesses to provethe case againstthe appellant. PWs 3 and 4, as aiready stated, werethe police officers who had apprehendedthe appellant and seizedthe incriminating articles from him. Public Witness 1 Head Constable Charan Das was examined to prove thatthe gun was in a working condition andthe caps and gunpowder were fit for use inthe gun. Public Witness 2 was a Reader attached tothe court ofthe District Magistrale, Faridabad.

(4) THE appellant, while denyingthe prosecution case andthe recovery ofthe gun and other articles from him, set up a plea that he and his employer one Shaukat Ali, who has been examined as DW l,had worked against a Member ofthe Lgislative Assembly by name Mr. Azmat Khan intheelections held bythe Land Mortgage Bank and on account of itthe said Azmat Khan had prevailed uponthe police to foist a false case on him.

(5) THE leamed Designated Judge, after due considration oftheevi-dence andthe plea put forth bythe appellant, heldthe prosecution case proved againstthe appellant beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentencedthe appellant as set out above.

(6) THE leamed counsel forthe appellant would contend thatthe Designated court had no jurisdiction to trythe appellant because he was not charged for having committed any offence under S. 3 ofthe Act. This argument is onthe face of it untenable in the.light of S. 6 and 9 ofthe Act. S. 6 lays down that if in any area notified bythe State government underthe Act a person contravenes any provision or ruie made underthe Arms Act, the Explosives Act,the Explosive Sub-stances Act andthe Inflammable Substances Act then he is liable to enhanced punishment as provided for inthe section. S. 9 lays down that notwithstanding anything contained inthe Code, every offence punishable underthe Act or any ruie made thereunder shall be triable oniy bythe Designated court within whose local jurisdiction it was com-mitted. It therefore follows that thoughthe offence committed bythe appellant was for contravention of S. 25 ofthe Arms Act, it became exclusively triable bythe Designated court because of notification made bythe State government andthe opration of S. 6 ofthe Act. It is common ground in this case thatthe State has notifiedthe area forthe purposes ofthe Act by means of Gazette Notification No. S.O./56/CA-31/85/86/85 dated 28/05/1985. It is, therefore, futile forthe appellant to contend thatthe Presiding Officer ofthe Designated court did not have jurisdiction to trythe appellant forthe offence for which he stood charged.

(7) LEAMED counsel forthe appellant then contended that based on the evidence of the police officers alone a conviction ought not to have been awarded tothe appellant. This contention overlooksthe fact that the appellant was apprehen