- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Court of the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Jalandhar in T.D. Sessions Case No. 8/95. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 25 of the Arms Act.
(2.) WHAT is held proved against the appellant is that on a disclosure statement made by him 15 kgs of RDX powder, 5 detonators with some fuse wire and a steno -gun kept in a gunny bag and buried in the ground of the Handloom center of Village Dugri were recovered. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined amongst other witnesses P.W.11 Radha Kishan the Investigating Officer. P.W.10 Mukhvinder Singh and P.W.9 Mukhtiar Singh who had acted as an independent witness to the making of the disclosure statement and recovery of the articles made pursuant thereto.
(3.) WHAT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.9 Mukhtiar Singh who has been examined by the prosecution as independent witness is really a police agent and on the basis of his evidence it ought not to have been held proved that the appellant had made a statement that he had concealed the said articles and that police had recovered the same when those articles were dug out by the appellant after taking the police to that spot. It was submitted that Mukhtiar Singh had a tea stall just opposite the police station and he had also acted as witness in 3 to 4 cases as observed by the trial court. The fact that he was having a tea stall opposite police station stands proved as a result of the admission made by Mukhtiar Singh himself. He, however, denied the suggestion made by the defence that he was a witness in 3 to 4 cases of Kartarpur police station. In his cross examination he admitted that he was a witness in one case of conspiracy, but denied that he was a witness in any other case. In view of his denial and absence of any other material it is difficult to accept the contention that the said witness was repeatedly put up as a witness by the police and thus was under the thumb of police. On the contrary we find that during his cross examination he had tried to help the accused by stating that his signatures on all the documents were obtained at the police station.;