https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173976 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. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:18:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173976 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173976