(1) THIS appeal arises out of the sentence and conviction of the appellant under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is: On 1/01/1989 ASI Prem Sagar along with H.C. Karnal Dutt and other police officials attached to the police station of Jagraon was going towards the village Dalla. When the party reached near the turning of the road low.irds village Dalla at about 3 p.m. the appellant was seen coming from the side of the canal hank. On seeing the police party the appellant sat down and pretended to pass urine. This aroused suspicion. When he was apprehended he was found in possession of one .12 bore country-made pistol which was taken from him from the left dub of his pyjama. On unloading the pistol, it was found to contain one live cartridge in its chamber. The recovered pistol and cartridge were taken into possession under a memo. Thereafter an FIR was registered and the appellant was charged under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987. In support of the prosecution Public Witness 2 and Public Witness 4 namely Head Constable Kamal Dutt and ASI Prem Sagar were examined to prove the seizure. Public Witness 1 was examined to speak to the facts that the pistol was in a working condition while Public Witness 3 proved the sanction accorded by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana. (2) THE defence was one of mere denial. The designated court after closely examining the evidence came to the conclusion that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses contained no discrepancy or infirmity and it fully corroborated the charge. It was further held that the prosecution witnesses had no enmity towards the accused. Accordingly, the accused (the appellant) was found guilty under Section 5 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs 1,000.00 with a default clause. (3) IN this appeal before us the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urges the following points: Though the seizure of the pistol was made under a memo the prosecution had not established that the pistol was kept sealed in proper police custody. Besides this, there is absolutely no justification for sending the pistol on May 16 for examination to find out whether the seized pistol was in a working condition. Besides this, there is absolutely no justification for sending the pistol on May 16 for examination to find out whether the seized pistol was in a working condition. As a matter of fact this court had occasion to comment upon such delays in Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab. In that ruling it was held that the delay in sending the firearm for obtaining the expert opinion would enable the court to disbelieve the expert evidence. If the same principle is applied to the facts of the case it will follow that the case of the appellant that he was innocent would stand clearly proved. This important aspect of the matter had been lost sight of by the designated court. There is every possibility that the pistol has been substituted in view of the long delay between the seizure and sending of the pistol for finding out whether it was in working condition. (4) PER contra the learned counsel appearing for the prosecution submits that it is true as seen from the evidence of Public Witness 1 that the pistol was sent for examination after nearly four months. But the evidence of PW I was available to the accused while Public Witness 4 was examined by the prosecution. No question was asked of him in cross-examination as why there was a delay in sending the pistol lor cxamination. Not even that; nor was a suggestion thrown to him that there has been a substitution of the pistol. (5) BALDEV Singh case does not apply to a case of this character for the following reasons: In the reported decision the court buttresses its conclusion holding that the expert evidence was liable to be disbelieved on account of the delay in sending the firearm for examination. Secondly, in that case the cartridge was one fired through the pistol in question itself which threw open some suspicion. Therefore, that case does not advance the plea of the appellant. Otherwise, there is cogent uninterested testimony of the prosecution witnesses which had been rightly accepted by the designated court. (6) WE have carefully examined the above submissions. We are unable to accept the case of the appellant. Therefore, that case does not advance the plea of the appellant. Otherwise, there is cogent uninterested testimony of the prosecution witnesses which had been rightly accepted by the designated court. (6) WE have carefully examined the above submissions. We are unable to accept the case of the appellant. Our reasons are as follows: As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the prosecution notwithstanding the fact that Public Witness 1 deposed that he came to examine the pistol on 16/05/1989 when Public Witness 4 was in the box, no question was asked of him in crossexamination as to the reason for the delay nor again was any suggestion made that there was a substitution of the pistol. The appellant merely rested his case on denial supported by DW 1. We are of the opinion that it was necessary on the part of the appellant to obtain this vital information so that the prosecution witnesses have explained the reason for the delay. (7) STRONG reliance is placed on Baldev Singh case. In our considered opinion that ruling has no application to the instant case. According to page 696 as here again it has rightly been contended on behalf of the respondent-prosecution the reason for the rejection of prosecution evidence was the delay in obtaining the expert evidence. It created a doubt about the use of the cartridge Ex. C-l with the crime. Here the facts are totally different. The accused did not even suggest that there has been substitution of the pistol nor again was a plea urged at any point of time that this was not the pistol seized from him. As rightly observed by the designated court the evidence of the witnesses examined by the side of the prosecution speak cogently as to the seizure. Besides, there was not even a suggestion of any enmity between the appellant and the prosecution witnesses. In the result, we conclude that there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.