JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 4.1.95, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the conviction & sentence, recorded by the learned M.J.M., Tibi, by his judgment dated 18.11.93 convicting him for the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. five hundred and in default to further undergo two months' S.I. 2. Succinctly stated the relevant facts of the case are that on 22.11.87, the petitioner was found in possession of one illicit 303 bore pistol for which he did not have any licence. After usual investigation and procuring the prosecution sanction, the S.H.O, P.S., Tibi submitted the challan before the learned Magistrate, who after trial convicted & sentenced the petitioner for the offence under section. 25(1B)(a), Arms Act and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed petitioner's appeal. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the lower courts. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not challenged the conviction of the petitioner. His sole contention is that the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident was 26 years of age; that he is neither a previous convict nor has had antecedents about his conduct and character and that the lower courts without assigning any valid reason, have declined to grant benefit of probation to him. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already been under detention for a period of one month and nineteen days and, as such, he should now be released on probation. 5. 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 Ravi 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 Ravi 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 has been bad or questionable. The alleged incident took place on 22.11.87. 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 one month and nineteen days. 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. *******