ORDER :

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.

The appellant is convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. According to the prosecution case on January 28, 1991 at about 6.15 p.m. PW 4 the Sub-Inspector along with Head Constable and constables and one Krishan PW 3 an independent witness saw the accused. But on seeing them he turned back but on suspicion he was apprehended and from him a 12 bore gun and two cartridges were recovered. PWs 1 to 3 including the independent witness supported the prosecution case. The prosecution proved that the accused was having a gun without a valid licence. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty. The designated court accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the police did not establish that what was recovered was a weapon answering the description of firearms since it was in two parts at the time of recovery and, therefore, the provisions of Section 5 of the TADA Act are not at