Dr. ANAND, J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA'), is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27-4-1995 of the Addl. Judge, Designated Court for Greater Bombay convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 5 of TADA read with Section 3(1) and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 5 years. The appellant has called in question his conviction and sentence through this appeal.
(2.) According to the provision story, on prior information received by PSI Varpe (PW-2) that the appellant herein, who was a wanted criminal, was likely to visit Sanket Hotel situate in the hamlet of Worli Koliwada, Bombay, the police officials of Dadar Police Station proceeded to Sanket Hotel on 1st of April, 1992, at about 9.00 P.M. As soon as the appellant entered the hotel, he was over powered by PSI Sawant (PW-1) who took him in his clutches. Sanjay Kashinath and Arjun Padmathali, two panches from the public were joined and in their presence from the personal search of the appellant, a country made revolver loaded with two live cartridges and cash amount of Rs.1230/- were recovered by PW-1 with the assistance of PSI Patki PW-5. A panchanama Ex.15 was prepared and the articles seized and sealed at the spot. The appellant was arrested and the police party took him to police Station Dadar, where formal FIR Ex.P11 was registered. The sealed parcel were handed over by PW-2 for safe custody to PI Administration, Shri Kamath. The parcel containing the country-made revolver and the cartridges was carried by Police Naik Ravindra Ranganath (PW-6) to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The ballistic expert subsequently submitted his report, Ex.P-17, according to which the recovered revolver was found to be in a working condition. The appellant possessed no licence for the revolver found in his possession and could not explain the possession of the unlawful arm and ammunition. Vide notification, Ext.18 the area, where Sanket Hotel was situate, had been declared a notified area under TADA. The appellant after completion of investigation, was sent up for trial.
(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and tendered in evidence various documents including the FIR, Ex.11, the report of the ballistic expert Ext.P-17, the notification, Ext. 18. Out of the 6 prosecution witnesses examined at the trial, PW-1 PSI Sawant, PW-2 PSI Varpe, PW-3 PI Hadap, PW-4 PI Gaikwad and PW-5 PSI Patki were the members of the raiding party. PW-6 had carried the sealed parcel to the ballistic expert. The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied prosecution allegations against him and pleaded false implication. The trial Court analysed the evidence on the record and found that even though PW-1 to PW-5 were all police officials, nonetheless their evidence was cogent, trustworthy and reliable and suffered from no infirmity. The trial Court found that the prosecution had established satisfactorily that the area from where the appellant was apprehended along with the country made 32 bore revolver pistol, which was in his conscious unauthorised possession, had been declared a notified area and since according to the report of the ballistic expert Ext.P-17, the fire arm recovered from the possession of the appellant was in a working condition, he was guilty of an offence under Section 5 of TADA in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994)(5)JT(SC) 540 .;