JUDGMENT The appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA) and Section 25, Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the said offences respectively by the Additional Judge of the Designated Court vide judgment dated 22nd September, 1993. Through this statutory appeal under Section 19 of TADA he has questioned his conviction and sentence. 2. According to the prosecution case, on the basis of secret information received by the Border Security Force, a naka was organised on 14th April, 1990 by Assistant Commandant Zile Singh (PW1). Assistant Commandant Nathu Singh (PW2) and one Mr. R. S. Bhuller, Deputy Commandant of 46th Btn. B.S.F., in the area of Kurli Sahib on the Road Barlas to Ajnala at about 3.30 p.m. The appellant alongwith Ravinder Yadav were spotted and stopped. Each had a brief case. They were searched. From the briefcase of the appellant 12 pistols, 24 magazines and 346 cartridges besides some other articles were recovered. The appellant had no licence for the arms and ammunition. The articles were seized and taken into possession, after preparing the recovery memo. The articles seized from Ravinder Yadav were also taken into possession. A ruqa was sent to the police station and formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was registered. On 15th April, 1990 Assistant Commandant Zile Singh PW 1 handed over the appellant and his companion Ravinder Yadav (since discharged at the stage of framing to charge itself) to A.S.I. Amarjit Singh, PW3. The B.S.F. officials also handed over the seized material including 12 pistols, 24 magazines and 346 cartridges alongwith the currency notes and other articles to PW3, A.S.I. Amarjit Singh, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PO, attested by Zile Singh, Assistant Commandant and Gulzar Singh, Constable. The seized arms and ammunition were deposited by A.S.I. Amarjit Singh, PW3 at the Malkhana with MHC and thereafter got tested from Armour Paramjit Singh (since deceased). PO, attested by Zile Singh, Assistant Commandant and Gulzar Singh, Constable. The seized arms and ammunition were deposited by A.S.I. Amarjit Singh, PW3 at the Malkhana with MHC and thereafter got tested from Armour Paramjit Singh (since deceased). The appellant was tried by the Designated Court and convicted in the manner noticed above. 3. The prosecution with a view to connect the appellant with the crime examined PW 1, Zile Singh, PW2, Nathu Singh and PW3, Amarjit Singh besides, producing some documentary and other formal evidence. The appellant in his defence while denying the recovery of the arms and ammunition stated that the B.S.F. officials had planted the weapons and ammunition on him though the same had been recovered from Sham Singh and Giani. He examined Rattan Lal, Balwinder Singh and Jaswant Singh as DW1, DW2 and DW3 and also appeared as his own witness as DW4. (DW2 and DW3 had earlier been cited by the prosecution but had been given up as won over). 4. Since, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also of the defence witnesses has been extracted in extenso by the trial court, we are refraining from reproducing the same in this order and shall refer to the same to the extent necessary hereafter. 5. Mr. S. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant who took us through the evidence submitted that the recovery of the arms and ammunitions from the appellant has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. We cannot agree. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, Zile Singh and Nathu Singh, is consistent as regards the recovery from the appellant. In spite of searching cross-examination, nothing has been elicited which may cast any doubt on their veracity. They appear to be truthful and reliable witnesses and have given a graphic account of the manner in which recovery was effected. Had the weapons and ammunition been recovered from Sham Singh and Giani, as alleged by the appellant, there was no reason why the same should have been planted by the B.S.F. officials on the appellant and that too for the alleged petty altercations which allegedly took place on the road when the B.S.F. vehicle hit the appellant and led to an exchange of abuses between the driver and the appellant. The defence version is not at all acceptable. It is not even plausible. The defence version is not at all acceptable. It is not even plausible. Looking to the quantity of the arms and ammunition, it cannot be a case of false planting either. Had the B.S.F. officials wanted to falsely involve the appellant, one weapon or some ammunition would have been sufficient. They did not require to plant 12 weapons besides cartridges. We have, therefore, no hesitation to reject the defence plea. 6. After carefully considering and analysing the evidence on the record, we agree with the trial court and are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the arms and the ammunitions, detailed in the recovery memo, were seized from the appellant in the manner and on the date as alleged by the prosecution and that the prosecution has established the case against the appellant satisfactorily and beyond a reasonable doubt. 7. Faced with the over-whelming reliable prosecution evidence, Mr. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellant is harsh and excessive. He submitted that ever since 14th April, 1990 when the appellant, a young man, was arrested by the B.S.F. officials, he has been in custody as he was never admitted to bail and that he has actually served more than 4 1/2 years of rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel submitted that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone. 8. In our opinion, the interest of justice would be met if while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 5 of TADA and Section 25 of the Arms Act, the substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 5 of TADA is reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. We make an order accordingly. The sentence of fine and the imprisonment in lieu thereof for both the offences is however set aside. Both the substantive sentences for the offences under Section 5 of TADA and Section 25 of the Arms Act, as modified by us, shall however, run concurrently. 9. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal partly succeeds and is disposed of. Order accordingly. For Citation:  1995 Cri. LJ 2120