S.P. Pathak, J.-This appeal has been filed by the State against the Judgment and order 5.1987 passed by Shri Rajendra Sharma, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge, Raisinghnagar, in Criminal Case No. 34/1987, whereby convicted the accused respondent for the term already undergone by him i.e., for one day.

2. In this matter, the leave to appeal filed by the State was granted on 17.5.1989.

3. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel appearing for the accused respondent. After going through relevant record, it appears that the accused respondent was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused respondent was not given the benefit of probation by the learned trial Judge.

4. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that the punishment inflicted on the accused is not in consonance with the crime committed by him. According to learned Counsel, sentence awarded to the accused was little less, therefore, according to him, the appeal deserves to be accepted.

5. I have carefully gone through the material available on record. Form the record, it reveals that the accused was conv