(1) THE sole appellant is convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the TADA Act and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. (2) ON 22/07/1991 the S.I., Public Witness 4, while making a general patrol, was joined by Public Witness 3 and another at Rohtak Chowk. From there the police party went to the bridge of the canal via village Rawaldhi. At about 2 a.m. (night) two persons came from the side of Dadri on separate cycles. They accosted them and accused was one of them who was found with the pistol Ex. P 1 and two cartridges Ex. P 2 and P 3. They were recovered and a Panchnama was prepared Ex. PC. (3) THE accused had no licence. After investigation a challan was filed. In a support of the case the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. (4) PUBLIC Witness 3, an independent witness, and Public Witness 4, S.I. deposed about the recovery of the pistol and two cartridges. The learned Designated Judge accepted their evidence and convicted the appellant. (5) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 in certain respects and their versions are inconsistent. One of the discrepancies pointed out is that while Public Witness 3 stated that the name of the accused or his fathers name was not asked in his presence pw 4 stated the names were enquired. In our view, this is not a material discrepancy. What we have to consider in the case is the recovery of the pistol and the two cartridges. So far as that aspect is concerned their evidence is consistent and has rightly been accepted by the designated court. (6) THE learned counsel relying on the judgments of this court in Usmanbhai Dawoobhai Memon v. State of Gujarat and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya submitted that the offence committed by the accused even if the case is rejected could have been dealt with under the ordinary law instead of resorting to TADA. The area with which we are concerned is the notified area and the recovery of the pistol and the two cartridges from the accused fairly attracts the provisions of TADA. Therefore, there is no illegality in prosecuting the appellant under the provisions of TADA. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.