K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the appellate judgment dated 28. 11. 86 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1986 whereby the petitioners conviction under section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act 1959 (for short Tthe Act) has been maintained. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCE giving rise to this petition are these, According to the prosecution on 31-1-86 on the A. S. Road at village Kakarda the petitioner was found in possession of a Phaliya. He had no licence for the possession of the same. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was eventually prosecuted. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar convicted the petitioner on his plea of guilty as provided under section 241 of the Cr. P. C. 1973 (for short the Codet ). ( 4 ) THE petitioner preferred appeal. It was contended that there is nothing on record to disclose the length of the Phaliya and that its possession at Kakarda was prohibited. The learned Sessions Judge held that seizure memo clearly details the length of the Phaliya and without mentioning the notification (No. 6312 6552, II. B (i) dt. 23. 11-74 published in M. P. Rajpatra Part 1 dt. 3-1-75 at page 20) under section 4 of the Act the learned Sessions Judge held that its possession without licence constituted an offence. He however reduced the sentence from one yearts S. I. to six months S. I. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this court is that section 3 of the Act deals with fire arms and provides for requirement of sanction for prosecution and that possession of the Phaliya could be held to be an offence under section 4 of the Act punishable, under section ibid only in terms of notification. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision in State of U. P. v. Munna1. ( 6 ) IT has also been contended by the petitioners learned counsel that as the petitioner was not provided any legal assistance his conviction cannot be sustained in view of the decision in Sukh Dass case2. ( 7 ) THE point for determination is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 8 ) I am of the view that the revision petition can be disposed of on the second of the aforesaid contentions. ( 7 ) THE point for determination is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 8 ) I am of the view that the revision petition can be disposed of on the second of the aforesaid contentions. ( 9 ) IN the decision in Sukh Dass case (supra) it has been observed thus in paragraph 5; It is now well established as a result of the decision of this Court in Hussainara Khatoons case (1979, 3 SCR 532: (AIR 1979 S. C. 1369) that the right to free legal service is clearly an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held to be constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal service on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so require, provided of course the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer. This Court pointed out that it is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just placed re to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the courts process that he should have legal service available to him. The same view was taken by a Bench of this Court earlier in M. S. Huskut v. State of Maharashtra3. It may therefore now be taken as settled law that free legal assistance at State cost is a fundamental right of a person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personal liberty and this fundamental right is implicit III the requirement of reasonable, fair and just procedure prescribed by Art. 21 of course, it must be recognized that there may be cases involving offences, such as, economic offence or offences against law prohibiting prostitution or child abuse and the like, where social justice may require that free legal service may not be provided by the State. There can in the circumstance be no doubt that the appellants were entitled to free legal assistance at State cost when they were placed in peril of their personal liberty by reason of being accused of an offence which clearly entail imprisonment for a term of two years. There can in the circumstance be no doubt that the appellants were entitled to free legal assistance at State cost when they were placed in peril of their personal liberty by reason of being accused of an offence which clearly entail imprisonment for a term of two years. ( 10 ) IN paragraph 6 of the decision pointing out that even literate people do not know what are their rights and entitlements under the law, it was observed as under: It would in these circumstances make a mockery of legal aid if it were to be left to a poor, ignorant and illiterate accused to ask for free legal service. Legal aid would become merely a paper promise and it would tail of its purpose. This is the reason why in Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 2 SCR 408 : AIR 1981 SC 928 we ruled that the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom an accused appears must be held to be under an obligation to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage the service of a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence, he is entitled to obtain free legal services at the cost of the State. The exercise of the fundamental right is thus not conditioned upon the accused applying for free legal assistance. ( 11 ) IN the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court further directed that no fresh trial shall be held against the accused persons. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, it cannot be permitted to be contended with any measure of success that the Magistrate was under no such obligation as the petitioner voluntarily pleaded guilty. What guarantee is there that he did not plead guilty under ignorance of his legal right. The alleged offence against the petitioner carries with it a sentence of imprisonment upto three years and is certainly not of such a nature as to disentitle him to free legal assistance as State cost. I may also be pointed out that even where the sentence provided one of fine, the convict in default of payment of fine, has to undergo imprisonment. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed. The petitionerts conviction and sentence are both set aside. I may also be pointed out that even where the sentence provided one of fine, the convict in default of payment of fine, has to undergo imprisonment. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed. The petitionerts conviction and sentence are both set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court for disposal according to law with due advertence to the decision in Suk Dass case (supra ). .