In appropriate cases, first-time offenders convicted under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act may be granted the benefit of probation, considering their age, lack of prior convictions, and good conduct.

1. - A notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor and with his consent this revision petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

2. The revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dated 5-2-1992, whereby he partly accepted the appeal of the petitioner and while maintaining his conviction under section 25(1 )(a) of the Arms Act recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh vide his judgment dated 28-7-1981, reduced his sentence from 1 year's simple imprisonment to 6 months' simple imprisonment and upheld the fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further under go 3 months' simple imprisonment.

3. Briefly the relevant facts of the case are that on 3-11-1983 at about 2.20 p.m. on seeing Shri Satya Narain, ASI and other constables, who were on patrolling duty near Rajasthan Canal, Talwada Jheel, the petitioner tried to run away. Thereupon, the police party pursued and apprehended him and on his search one 32 bore pistol having a barrel of 8 inch in length was recovered from his possession. The petitioner did not have any licence to possess the said fire arm. Accordingly on the report of the ASI, a case was registered under the 25 Indian Arms Act at Police Station, Tibbi. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned Judicial Magistrate after trial found the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 25(l)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to 1 year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-. This sentence was subsequently reduced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment. Hence this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not challenged the conviction of the petitioner on merits. He has simply urged that at the time of the alleged occurrence the age of the petitioner was only 19 years; that this was his first offence and that without any malintention the petitioner had kept the recovered revolver with him for his security purposes. He has also contended that the petitioner has been in jail from 3-11-1983 to 5-11-1983 and thereafter from 5-2-1992. He has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be given the benefit of probation.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently objected and urged that on the day of the alleged incident the minimum sentence for such an offence was 6 months and as such the petitioner should not be released on probation.

6. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and perused the record in extenso.

7. In Jagta Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, 1981 Raj . Cr. Cases-1, it has been held that unless any Act excludes the applicability of Section 360 Cr. PC or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the mere fact that a minimum sentence prescribed for any offence is six months or so, is not sufficient to refuse the benefit of probation and that it will, however, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether such benefit should be extended to the accused or not.

8. The Arms Act, 1959 does not exclude the application of provisions of section 360 Cr. PC as well as those of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. In such circumstances mere prescribing the minimum sentence does not create any bar for giving the benefit of section 360 Cr. PC or of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused in an appropriate case.

9. In Ram Pratap v. The State of Raj., 1989 Cr. LR (Raj.)-139 , the accused was found guilty for the offence under section 25(l)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-. The accused was not a previous convict. He had also been under detention for 12 days. This Court after considering those circumstances, granted the benefit of probation to the accused.

10. Similarly in Mishri Lal v. State, 1989 RCC 169 , the accused w