(1) THE appellant was charged and tried under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (Act for short). He has been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 but convicted under Section 5 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. He has further been directed to pay fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. (2) THE prosecution case was that Sub-Inspector Rajinder Pal, In-charge,Police Post, was holding Naka on 25/8/1989 at Varka when the appellant was seen coming from the side of Jethuwal; he was asked to stop but instead of stopping he fired on the police party whereupon Sub-Inspector Rajinder Pal in self-defence fired 3 shots. The accused surrendered and from his right hand a revolver and four empties were recovered. The appellant denied the incident and claimed that he was falsely implicated. (3) THE Designated court acquitted the appellant under Section 307 as nobody had been injured. But it found that there was nothing to disbelieve the cross-firing. Consequently, he convicted the appellant for possession of the arm for which he did not have any licence. (4) WE have been taken through the evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that since the arm recovered from the appellant was sent to the Ballistic Expert but he was not examined, it must be held that the prosecution failed to establish that the arm was such on which conviction could be based under Section 5 of the Act. Normally, the argument could have had some merit but since in this case the prosecution story was that there was a cross-fire and which story was believed by the Designated court and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any material which could demolish the finding by the Designated court, it has to be accepted that there was a cross-firing. If that be so, then in our opinion it was not necessary to send the revolver to the Ballistic Expert as it was recovered from the appellant at the spot. Since the appellant did not have any licence and the revolver was admittedly of the category which is mentioned in the schedule, he was rightly convicted under Section 5 of the Act. Since the appellant did not have any licence and the revolver was admittedly of the category which is mentioned in the schedule, he was rightly convicted under Section 5 of the Act. (5) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is on bail.He shall surrender to his bail bonds and serve out the remaining sentence.