ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 3. On September 16, 1991, ASI Jagat Singh (PW 5), along with his staff HG Maheshwar Lal, Azad Singh and Sumer Singh was patrolling on Gohana Road and when they reached the canal bridge they saw the accused and on suspicion they apprehended him and on search the accused was found with a country-made pistol of .315 bore along with three live cartridges. They were seized under a panchnama. The pistol was tested by Armour Officer Surjit Singh (PW 2), and the same was found to be in working order. The seized articles were identified in the court by PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that the case was foisted against him. The learned designated Judge accepted the evidence of the witnesses and convicted the appellant accordingly. 4. In this appeal the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the accused could have been tried under the general law in an ordinary court and the circumstances do not warrant the application of provisions of TADA. We are unable to agree with him. The recovery was effected from the accused and the ingredients of the provisions of TADA, particularly Section 5, are squarely attracted and, therefore, nothing is illegal or irregular in the trial of the accused which has taken place in the designated court under the provisions of TADA. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the trial Judge has observed that the cartridges seized cannot be said to be live or not, inasmuch as they were not tested, and, therefore, it must be presumed that they do not come under the meaning of ammunition and consequently the accused can be convicted only under Section 25 of the Arms Act. We see no force in this submission. PW 2, the Armour Officer who examined the pistol found it to be in working order and this very pistol and the cartridges were seized from the accused. We see no force in this submission. PW 2, the Armour Officer who examined the pistol found it to be in working order and this very pistol and the cartridges were seized from the accused. PW 4, Maheshwari Lal HC was present at the time of the recovery and he identified the cartridges and stated that they are live cartridges and further it is noted by the court in his deposition that the sealed parcel containing pistol with seal Jagat Singh was opened and the three cartridges were taken out and he has not been cross-examined to the effect that they were not live cartridges. Likewise, Jagat Singh, ASI(PW 5) also identified the cartridges that were seized and described them as live cartridges. Therefore, there is no force in the submission that merely because the cartridges were not subject to a test-fire does not mean that they do not come within the meaning of ammunition. Further, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that three cartridges which were found to be live were not with the accused when the recovery itself is established beyond doubt. At any rate, one cannot imagine that the accused who was having a pistol which was in working order was having useless cartridges. The only irresistible inference is that the cartridges which were described as live cartridges do come within the meaning of ammunition. Therefore, all the ingredients of Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 are made out. 6. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.