JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal of the State is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judicial Railway Magistrate, Jaipur on 28th of November, 1969 acquitting both Mangilal and Harishanker of the charges under section 20 read with section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 22nd of November, 1967, Mangilal and Hari Shanker were sitting to the waiting room of Railway Station, Khairtal. F.C. Gopal along with Sultan Singh, another Constable posted at Bandikui, suspected these two boys and on enquiry it was discovered that they had with them two revolvers. A message was sent to the Police Station, Alwar from where the Head Constable came to the spot and seized both the revolvers vide seizure memo Ex. P.4 and Ex. P.5. In this seizure memo these revolvers have been described as country-made revolvers. The learned Magistrate did not find these revolvers serviceable and, therefore, acquitted both the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. 3. Harishanker could not be served and, therefore, the appeal against him has been consigned to record vide order of this Court dated 7th July, 1972. Therefore, the appeal is heard only against respondent Mangilal. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Mangilal urged that at the time when the revolver was recovered from the possession of Mangilal, he was a lad of 16 only and the Head Constable who prepared the seizure memo of the revolver also described him as a boy of 16. Even if the charge had been proved against Mangilal he was entitled to the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act as the case was disposed of in the year 1969 when Mangilal could be the boy of 18 only. In these circumstances no useful purpose can be served to go into the merits of the case and call for the revolver from the trial court. It is an old matter of 1967 and learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent has now joined military service and, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to dislodge him from service if conviction is ordered by this court. In view of all these circumstances, I am not prepared to disturb the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. *******