Vs. State of Haryana  INSC 345 (21 July 1998)
Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar Nanavati, J.
appellant is challenging his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act read
with Section 5 of the TADA Act.
The Designated Court believed the evidence of Ganga Ram,
the Investigator and held that the appellant possessed a country made pistol
and three live cartidges.
State has not thought it fit to prepare the paper- books containing evidence in
this case. Therefore, neither the learned counsel for the State nor the learned
counsel for the appellant was in a position to render any assistance to us.
have ourselves gone through the evidence of the three eye eye-witnesses. We
find that in view of what Nathu Ram stated before the court, the evidence of Ganga
Ram ought not to have been accepted by the Court and it ought not to have been
held that the accused was found in possession of the weapon and three cartidges
which were sent for examination to Forensic Science laboratory, Karnal.
therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and
acquit him of the offence with which he was charged.