(1) THE appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter called TADA) and sentenced to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 500.00. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant has questioned his conviction and sentence through this appeal under Section 19 of TADA. (2) THE prosecution case against the appellant is that on the night intervening 26th and 27th of January, 1993 Sub-Inspector Siri Krishan Public Witness 3 held Nakabandi on the road leading from Chotpura to Dabkali in the area of Village Dabkali when the appellant was apprehended on suspicion at about 5.00 a.m. in the presence of Gurnam Singh Public Witness 1. From the search of the appellant by Siri Krishan SI Public Witness 3, in the presence of Gurnam Singh Public Witness 1 and the other members of the police party, a 12 bore loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the right dab of his pyjama. From the right side pocket of the shirt of the appellant, two cartridges were recovered out of which one was a missed cartridge. The pistol was sent for testing and Public Witness 2 Constable Pramod Kumar on 10/2/1993 tested the pistol and opined that its Firing mechanism was in order as per his Written report Ex. PO. Sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was obtained from the District Magistrate, Karnal and sanction order Ex. PF was duly exhibited during the trial. Besides the three witnesses mentioned above, the prosecution gave up all other witnesses as unnecessary. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. (3) THE learned Designated court considered the evidence of three witnesses referred to above and found the same to be cogent and reliable and convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. (4) APPEARING for the appellant, his learned counsel submitted that the prosecution case suffers from infirmities and that the evidence of the so-called seizure of the revolver from the appellant is not reliable. He also submitted that there was delay in the testing of the pistol by Public Witness 2 and that rendered the prosecution case doubtful. (5) WE have gone through the evidence on the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. He also submitted that there was delay in the testing of the pistol by Public Witness 2 and that rendered the prosecution case doubtful. (5) WE have gone through the evidence on the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons which follow, we are of the opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. (6) ACCORDING to the evidence of Siri Krishan SI Public Witness 3, he had taken Gurnam Singh Public Witness 1, whom he did not know from before, to lead them to the Police Post, Biana. It defies logic as to why a Sub-Inspector of the Police Station, Indri, within the jurisdiction of which Police Post, Biana falls, should require somebody to lead him to the police post to indicate its location. The effort of PW 3 to show that he did not know Public Witness 1 at all and that Public Witness 1 Gurnam Singh was an independent witness appears to be a futile attempt. On Gurnam Singh PW 1 s own showing, he is an ex-Sarpanch of the village and his father is Nambardar of the village. He had been to the police station quite often. He must, therefore, be known to the police officers of Police Station, Indri and Police Post, Biana. Moreover, the very fact that on their return from patrol duty, PW 3 and his party halted at the residence of Public Witness 1 and had tea with him at 11 p.m. at night is suggestive of the fact that Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 3 were well known to each other as otherwise it does not stand to reason why the police party should go to the house of a stranger at night and after taking tea ask him to show them the way to Police Post, Biana. From a careful perusal of the evidence of Public Witness 1 and Public Witness 3, we are of the opinion that Public Witness 1 was well known to Public Witness 3 and the assertion to the contrary of Public Witness 3 is not correct. Since Public Witness 3 was going to hold a Nakabandi, he should have associated.with him some independent witness of the locality to lend credence to the search and seizure of the weapon from the appellant. Since Public Witness 3 was going to hold a Nakabandi, he should have associated.with him some independent witness of the locality to lend credence to the search and seizure of the weapon from the appellant. According to Public Witness 3, several persons had passed from the place where the Nakabandi was held during the period when the police party was there. Why none of them was associated has not been explained by Public Witness 3. Moreover, Public Witness 3 has failed to explain as to the reason for first going to Police Post Biana, if he was going to hold a Nakabandi, four kilometres away from the police post. The prosecution story regarding the apprehension of the appellant on suspicion and the recovery from him at 5 a.m. on the wintry night of 26/27/1/1993 does not inspire confidence. (7) THAT apart, we find yet another serious infirmity in the prosecution case. According to the recovery memo Ex. PB, when the pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the appellant, they were made into a parcel and the parcel was sealed with the seal SK. The recovery memo Ex. PB was attested by Gurnam Singh, Public Witness 1 and Ram Chander ASI of Police Post Biana. According to PW 3, after the pistol was recovered and seized, it was deposited with the Mohrrir Head Constable, in-charge of the Malkhana. According to Public Witness 2, the assistant armourer, on 10/2/1993, tested a country-made pistol which was "produced by Sub-Inspector Siri Krishan of CIA Staff, Kamal". No evidence have been led by the prosecution to show as to how SI Siri Krishan Public Witness 3 could produce the pistol for testing before Public Witness 2, when it had been deposited in the Malkhana with the Mohrrir Head Constable. Public Witness 2 did not receive the pistol Ex. P-l in a sealed condition. His evidence shows that the pistol was produced by SI Siri Krishan Public Witness 3. He does not talk of receiving any sealed parcel. When was the sealed parcel obtained by Public Witness 3? Who broke the seal of the parcel before it was produced before Public Witness 2, are matters which have not been explained by the prosecution. His evidence shows that the pistol was produced by SI Siri Krishan Public Witness 3. He does not talk of receiving any sealed parcel. When was the sealed parcel obtained by Public Witness 3? Who broke the seal of the parcel before it was produced before Public Witness 2, are matters which have not been explained by the prosecution. These infirmities create a serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case and detract materially from the genuineness of the recovery of the pistol and its subsequent testing by Public Witness 2, who on his own showing did not even fire a cartridge from the pistol to test its mechanism. (8) ON a careful consideration of the evidence on record and keeping in view the infirmities to which reference has been made by us above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. His conviction and sentence, as recorded by the Designated court, cannot, therefore, be sustained. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and direct him to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.