http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: SUBHASH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/07/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      Nanavati, J.      The  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.      The 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.      We 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.      We,  therefore,   allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the conviction of  the appellant  and acquit  him of the offence with which he was charged.