ORDER

1. The present revision petition under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.3.2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah District Morena in Criminal Appeal No.199/2018 confirming the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah District Morena in Criminal Case No.1064/2008 whereby petitioner has been convicted as under :

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 8.9.2008 when ASI Rajendra Singh (PW-2) along with other police personnel were checking the vehicles at Ater Tiraha, Mandi Road, at that time, due to said check post, driver of one blue colour platina motorcycle bearing registration No. MP06 M 6648 tried to ran away. He was stopped and on asking, he told his name Majboot Singh and further when he was checked, from his possession one loaded Katta was recovered for which he was not having any licence. Majboot Singh -petitioner was arrested on the spot and Katta along with one live cartridge and motorcycle bearing registration No.MP06 M 6648 were seized vide seizure memo Ex-P/1 and FIR ExP/3 was registered against the petitioner at Crime No.213/2008 for offence under sections 25/27 of Arms Act. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the matter under sections 25/27 of Arms Act.

3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, district Morena, petitioner abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses in support of its case and in defence, accused/petitioner himself has been examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as referred above.

4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner by preferring criminal appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the said appeal and maintained the conviction of petitioner as recorded by the trial Court, therefore, the petitioner are before this Court.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence referred above. There is material contradictions and omissions between the statements of prosecution witnesses in relation to place of arrest of petitioner and seizure of weapon and such aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and the witnesses who were examined by the prosecution belong to the police department, therefore, the testimony of these interested witnesses cannot be taken to be true without corroborative evidence. Thus, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is the first offender, therefore, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) ought to have been given by the Courts below as petitioner wants to mend his ways to become a better citizen in future. Thus, the trial Court erred in not extending the benefit of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards section 361 of Cr.P.C. and submits that the Court has to record its reasoning for not extending the benefit of the said Act. Thus, in alternate, prayer for extending the benefit of the Act is made on behalf of petitioner.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition.

8. Heard learned co