JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.1.1995, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Hanumangarh by his judgment dated 30.11.1988, convicting him for offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that on 12.9.1982, the petitioner was found in possession of a country- made 12 bore pistol, without any marking, for which he did not possess any licence The S.H.O., Police Station, Tibi after investigation and procuring sanction for prosecution from the District Magistrate, submitted the challan in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Hanumangarh Junction. The petitioner was charged for offence under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate by his judgment dated 30.11.88 convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner indicated above. Learned Sessions Judge also dismissed his appeal. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard Shri Kulwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.S. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor and perused record of the lower courts. 4. Shri Kulwant Singh has rightly not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. His only contention is that the petitioner is not a previous convict nor he has a bad antecedent about his conduct and character, that at the time of alleged offence he was about 39 years and, that the learned lower courts without assigning any valid reason, have declined to grant benefit of probation to the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner has already been under detention for more than one and a half months and, as such, he should be released on probation. 5. Shri Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this and contended that the petitioner should not be released on probation. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The Arms Act, 1959 does not exclude the application of provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code as well as those of provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. In Jugta Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 Raj. Cr. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The Arms Act, 1959 does not exclude the application of provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code as well as those of provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. In Jugta Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 Raj. Cr. Cases 01 , it has been held that unless any Act excludes the applicability of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code. or the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, the mere fact that a minimum sentence has been prescribed for any offence, is not sufficient to refuse beneficiary probation. It was further observed that its application, however, depends on the facts of each case as to whether such benefit should be extended to the accused or not. This is trite law that mere prescribing of minimum sentence for a particular offence does not create any bar for extending the benefit of probation either under Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, or under the Probation of Offenders Act in a particular case. A similar view has been taken in Pidar Singh v. State of Raj., 1992 Cr.L.R. 329. 7. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was a previous convict or that his conduct or character was not good. The alleged incident took place on 15.9.82. Since then, the petitioner has undergone mental agony and incurred financial strain during the trial as also during appeal. He has already been under detention for a period of about 11/2 months. Therefore, having regard to the age, character and antecedents of the petitioner as also the nature of offence committed by him, I feel that it is a fit case wherein the petitioner should be released on probation of good conduct. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining his conviction recorded by learned Magistrate, it is directed that instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, he be released on probation of good conduct, on his entering into personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one sound & solvent security in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years from today and, in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 5,000/- with one sound & solvent security in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years from today and, in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He shall also give an undertaking that during the said period, he shall not commit any offence punishable under the Arms Act.The seized country-made pistol stands confiscated to the State.Revision partly allowed. *******