ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - The sole appellant was tried by the designated court. He is convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and is sentenced to the minimum period of five years. 2. The prosecution case is that on February 18, 1990, the Sub-Inspector arrested the accused in connection with a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, under FIR No. 15 dated February 1, 1990 along with the other accused. On interrogation the appellant is alleged to have taken the police to a place in his house and produced a country-made pistol which was concealed there. A panchnama was prepared and the country-made pistol was recovered. 3. The designated court framed charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5(1) (d) of the TADA Act and questioned him under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused pleaded that he was falsely implicated. The trial court relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the Police Officers, convicted the accused. We may mention here that PW 3, the independent witness, who was present at the time of panchnama did not support the prosecution case and was treated hostile. 4. The trial court while convicting the appellant held that the appellant was found in possession of one country-made pistol "with which he had fired at the house of Harnek Singh, but did not hit Harnek Singh or any other person". In support of this finding there is no discussion of any sort of evidence whatsoever by the trial court. From the judgment, we do not find that there is any discussion as to how the court could reach such a conclusion. Therefore, this finding does not appear to be correct. Then what remained in the case is that the accused produced a country-made pistol thereby leading to the inference that he was in possession of the same but the country-made pistol so seized was not tested by any expert, nor is there any evidence to show that the weapon was in workable condition so that it can answer the description of firearms. This is a lacuna in the prosecution case and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 5 are not fully made out. This is a lacuna in the prosecution case and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 5 are not fully made out. In the result the conviction and sentence awarded by the designated court against the appellant are set aside and he shall be set at liberty. 5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.