BRIJ PAL vs STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRTATION)

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA Act), affirming the Designated Court's finding that the prosecution established the appellant's possession of a countrymade pistol and cartridges beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the evidence presented by police witnesses was sufficient, despite the absence of independent witnesses, and emphasized the reliability of the ballistic expert's testimony regarding the weapon's functionality. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment was confirmed.