The court may grant the benefit of probation under section 360 of the Cr.P.C. based on the appellant's age, lack of previous convictions, and other relevant factors.

1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th Oct., 87, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty u/s. 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 100/-; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.

2. Manoharlal, Head-Constable and Ganga Singh Chouhan, SI, of PS - Gadhibajna entered a report (Ex. P 9) at the police station contending that on 23rd Apr., 85, while Ganga Singh was returning from Bharatpur, Manohar Lal Head-Constable met him at Bandhbaretha Bus-stand, and told him that in the `Nullah' ahead of Tarsuma, 5 miscreants were sitting having, country-made revolvers, guns etc. in their hands, and were making preparations for committing dacoity, and that if they could be apprehended, then, some mis-happening could be avoided. At this, some police officials reached there and found 5 persons sitting. Seeing the police personnel, 3 of them ran away, and while running, the police could identify them, one of them being Fattey, and the other two were Rajendra and Misrilal. They were caught at the spot and arrested. Thereafter, the police seized one country-made revolver and some live cartridges from the possession of Rajendra. After completing investigation, the police submitted challan against the three persons, namely, Rajendra, Misrilal and Fattey u/ss. 399 & 402, IPC; and u/s. 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act.

3. The accused persons were charge-sheeted accordingly, who denied all the allegations and pleaded not guilty.

4. Accused Misrilal remained absent, and report was that he was in M.P. Jail. As by production-warrant, he could not be called during the trial, the trial court ordered that the trial of Misrilal would be held, later on; and he proceeded with the trial of Rajendra and Fattey.

5. After recording the entire evidence, the learned trial court did not find a case u/ss. 399 & 402, IPC established against accused persons Rajendra and Fattey, and so, it acquitted both of them of these charges. There was no charge against accused Fattey u/s. 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act. Only accused Rajendra was charge-sheeted for this offence; and the trial court found that the case against Rajendra was fully established u/s. 3/25 of the Arms Act, and it sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment.

6. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellant did not argue on the merits of the case. His submission was only on the point of sentence. He argued that there is nothing on the record to show that accused Rajendra is a previous convict, or that he had a bad history about his conduct and character. It was also argued that he is a young boy of 23 years of age, and that at the time of his arrest for this offence, he was below 21 years. He relying on the case of Palsingh v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 RLR 925 , argued that it is a fit case where the accused should be the benefit of S. 360, Cr.P.C.

7. Considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties. The accused-appellant was arrested on 23rd Apr., 85, and according to his arrest-memo, he was 24 years of age at that time. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313, Cr.P.C on 3rd Sept., 87, and there, he mentioned his age as 20 years, while according to the court, he was approximately 25-26 years of age. His statement in court was recorded after 2 years of the alleged incident. So, as per the estimate of the court, the accused was near about 23 years of age when he was arrested. No doubt, he was not in possession of a valid licence for keeping arms and ammunitions, but, looking to the facts that there is nothing on the record to show that he has been a previous convict, and that he has already been in jail for about 3 months, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the accused should be granted the benefit o