(1) AVTAR Singh-appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, hereinafter TADA. Through this appeal, he has questioned his conviction and sentence. (2) THOUGH learned counsel for the appellant initially made an attempt to question the validity of the conviction of the appellant in the case arising out of FIR No. 250 of 1988 dated 1/10/1988, by referring to some portions of the evidence of the police officials and panch witnesses relating to the making of a disclosure statement by the appellant leading to the recovery of an AK-47 rifle, two magazines, 98 live cartridges, but, faced with the overwhelming reliable and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution in support of the disclosure statement and the consequent recovery of the incriminating material, he 199 confined his argument to the question of sentence only. We are, therefore, confining our consideration to the question of sentence only. (3) MR Sodhi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 5 of TADA, the sentence prescribed ranges from a minimum of 5 years rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment but that the learned Designated Judge, after recording the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 5 of TADA did not give any reasons whatsoever as to why the maximum sentence of life imprisonment was being imposed on the appellant. Learned counsel drew our attention to the order of the learned Designated Judge dated 16/4/1994 on the question of sentence and submitted that in view of the failure of the prosecution in the main case, the imposition of life imprisonment, in the established facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. (4) AFTER convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 5 of TADA, the Designated court heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence and recorded: "(9 Convict Avtar Singh to undergo RI for life for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA (P) Act, 1987." (5) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, appears to us to be right in his submission that since the Legislature has prescribed the range of sentence from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment, the Designated court is required to give some reasons as to why the maximum sentence of life imprisonment was being awarded. Since no reasons have been given by the Designated court, we are also deprived of the opportunity to test the validity of those reasons for imposing the maximum sentence of imprisonment for life on the appellant. (6) THE evidence led by the prosecution and the record available establishes that the appellant has been rightly convicted for an offence under Section 5 of TADA and we uphold his conviction. The recovery of an AK-47 rifle, a weapon of foreign origin, with 98 live cartridges and two magazines, during the investigation of FIR No. 463 of 1988, Police Station Shahdara, concerning bomb blasts in Delhi, (in which incidentally all the accused including the appellant were acquitted) does call for imposition of deterrent sentence. We are, of the opinion that in the established facts and circumstances of the case the imposition of life imprisonment on the appellant is however, harsh and not warranted. In our opinion, interest of justice would be met if the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is reduced to a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment. We, therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 5, TADA, set aside the sentence of life imprisonment and instead sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. (7) WITH the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is disposed of.