1. - This Criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.06.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar (for short 'the appellant Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 7/94 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 07.01.1994 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter), was dismissed. By the order dated 07.01.1994, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offences under Section 3/25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for Short 'the Arms Act' hereinafter) and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months simple imprisonment.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition does not challenge his conviction for the offence noticed above, however, learned Counsel has confined his arguments on the quantum of sentences and grant of benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act of 1958' hereinafter). It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the relevant date of occurrence, the petitioner was 19 year of age and as such he has not attained the age of 21 years on the relevant date of occurrence and therefore, both the Courts below fell in error in not extending the benefit of the Act of 1958. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have not assigned any special reason denying the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. as envisaged under Section 361 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyabhan Kishore and Anr. v. The State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 1554 , in Masarullah v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1983 SC 654 and in Daljit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab through Secretary Home Affairs 2006 (2) WLC Criminal 341 (SC) . Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on decisions of this Court in Mander Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2003 (3) RCC 1352 , in Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan 1989 Cr.L.R. 139 (Raj.) , in Roshan @ Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan 2005(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 690 .

4. Learned public prosecutor supported the judgment and orders impugned including sentence awarded to the petitioner. According to learned public prosecutor, for the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, the Legislature provided that imprisonment for such offence shall be of a term which shall not be less than one year and therefore, both the Courts below were justified in passing the sentence of one year. However, Section further provides that such sentence may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine and proviso to this Section provides that the Court may for any adequate and special reason to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year. Thus, the proviso, empowers for imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year may be for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in judgment.Section 360 Cr.P.C. deals with release in the accused on probation of good conduct or after admonition.Section 360 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"360. Order to release on probation of good conduct of after admonition.

(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedi