ORDER :

Dr. A.S. Anand, J. - The appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter TADA) and sentenced to suffer five years? rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergo RI for six months. He has filed this statutory appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.

2. According to the prosecution case, Constable Bir Singh, Constable Har Pal along with Head Constable Jagdish Parshad were present near Budhia-Nala at about 8.30 p.m. on 8-11-1991 when they saw the appellant coming from the side of the bridge, who on seeing the police party, tried to slip away. On suspicion, he was chased by the police officials and nabbed. On search of the appellant by Head Constable Jagdish Parshad, he was found to be carrying a country-made pistol besides three cartridges. The appellant did not have any licence for the arms and ammunition. PW 1 prepared a sketch of the pistol Ex. PA and took it into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB. Similarly, the cartridges were also taken into possession. After seizure of the arms and ammunition, ruqa,