Recovery evidence and possession proved by consistent police testimony upheld despite non-examination of investigating officer and no public witnesses.

Conviction for possession of arms and ammunition under TADA and the Arms Act was sustained because the patrol witnesses gave consistent, mutually corroborative evidence of apprehension and recovery, and cross-examination did not discredit their version. The non-examination of the investigating officer did not warrant an adverse inference, as efforts had been made to produce him and no prejudice to the defence was shown. The absence of public witnesses also did not undermine the recovery, since the police witnesses stated that attempts were made to secure independent witnesses but none agreed to join the search. The challenge to recovery and proof of possession therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for possession of arms and ammunition under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and the Arms Act, 1959 was sustainable in view of the challenge to the recovery evidence, the non-examination of the investigating officer, and the absence of public witnesses.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence of the members of the patrol party who effected the apprehension and recovery was found consistent and mutually corroborative, and nothing material emerged in cross-examination to discredit them. The non-examination of the investigating officer did not justify an adverse presumption because the prosecution had failed to produce him despite efforts, and no prejudice to the defence was shown. The absence of public witnesses also did not vitiate the case, since the police witnesses stated that efforts were made to secure independent witnesses but none agreed to join the search.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the challenge to the recovery and proof of possession failed.

---