( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (for short "tada") against the conviction of the appellants under Section 392, IPC and Section 3 of TADA by the learned Designated Judge, Nabha. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that the accused persons entered into the house of one Arjan Singh and asked him to hand over his licensed gun. Arjan Singh replied to them that the gun had already been deposited in the police station and it was not available in the house. But the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences and then the wife of Arjan Singh appeared at the scene of occurrence and, on being asked, she delivered the gun in question to the accused persons. ( 3 ) ON 16/08/1991, a report was lodged at the police station on the basis of which the investigating agency started investigation. On completion of the investigation, finally a charge-sheet was filed and the accused persons stood their trial. While investigation in the aforesaid case was going on, according to the prosecution, there was an encounter on 31/08/1991 between the accused persons and the police party in which the gun in question was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. In respect of the said occurrence on 31/08/1991, an F. I. R. No. 170 was lodged. In the said trial arising out of F. I. R. No. 170, the accused persons have been acquitted, but so far as the case arising out of F. I. R. No. 158, dated 16-8-1991 is concerned, the accused persons have been convicted under Section 392, IPC and Section 3 of TADA, as already stated, by the learned Designated Judge and we are concerned in this appeal with the said case. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, i. e. , Arjan Singh and his wife Swaran Kaur, the learned Designated Judge came to the conclusion that the accused persons on the fateful night of 15/08/1991, entered into the house of Arjan Singh and forced Arjan Singh and his wife to deliver their. 12 bore licensed gun with cartridges, took away the gun and ran away from the place of occurrence. ( 5 ) MR. 12 bore licensed gun with cartridges, took away the gun and ran away from the place of occurrence. ( 5 ) MR. Ujagar Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously contended that the acquittal of the accused persons of the case arising out of F. I. R. No. 170, dated 31-8-1991 entitles them to be acquitted of the present case also, inasmuch as the entire story must be held to be a concocted one. According to the learned counsel, if there had been no encounter on 31/08/1991 as alleged by the prosecution, the theory that the accused persons entered into the house of Arjan Singh on 15-8-1991 and forcibly took away the gun from his house also is not sustainable and in this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellants of charges under Section 392, IPC and Section 3 of TADA cannot be sustained. We are unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. ( 6 ) THE two incidents, one that happened in the night of 15/08/1991 and the other that happened on 31/08/1991, are distinct and separate from each other and, therefore, acquittal of the accused persons of the criminal case arising out of the later occurrence does not ipso facto entitle them to be acquitted of the offence that was committed on 15/08/1991. ( 7 ) SO far as the present case is concerned, the question for consideration is that whether on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can be held that on 15/08/1991, the accused persons entered into the house of Arjan Singh and forcibly took away the gun by putting Arjan Singh and his wife into fear of life and left the place. The learned Designated Judge has thoroughly scrutinised the evidence on record and on the basis of the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, i. e. Arjan Singh and his wife Swaran Kaur, has come to a categorical finding relying upon their testimony, that the accused persons did enter into the house of Arjan Singh on 15/08/1991 and, putting them into the fear of life, took away their licensed gun from their possession. On going through the evidence of those two eye-witnesses, who have categorically narrated the incident that had occurred on 15/08/1991, we see no infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Designated Judge. On going through the evidence of those two eye-witnesses, who have categorically narrated the incident that had occurred on 15/08/1991, we see no infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Designated Judge. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the charges against the accused-appellant under Section 392, IPC as well as Section 3 of TADA must be held to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. We see no merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.