JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 6.7.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ganganagar by which he upheld the conviction and sentence of petitioner Under Section 3/25 (I-B)(a) of the Arms Act. A notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor at the stage of admission, which he accepted and the matter was heard with the consent of both the parties. 2. Briefly stated the allegations are that on 29.7.1989, S.H.O., Lalgarh was on patrolling duty. When he reached at 8 BNW Canal, he saw the accused petitioner coming. When the petitioner saw the police officials, he tried to hide himself and turned towards the field. On being suspicious, the S.H.O. inquired about the name of the petitioner etc. and the petitioner was searched out. A twelve bore country made pistol was recovered from the accused petitioner. He had no licence thereof. He was apprehended. The arm was sealed and the accused petitioner was brought to the Police Station, where a case was registered Under section 3/25, Arms Act. After completion of investigation he was chained. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sadul Shahar convicted him on 13.11.1992 and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-. On appeal, it was upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. I nave heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the judgments 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 alleged incident was of 43 years of age and has remained in custody for more than 15 days. Therefore, he should be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the petitioner should not be released on probation. 6. I find from the judgments of both the courts below that a prayer was made for probation, but it was denied. The learned Magistrate of the trial Court was of the opinion that Sadul Shahar was adjacent to Ferozpur District of Punjab, where terrorist activities were on rampage in the year 1992. Therefore, he denied the benefit of probation to the accused petitioner. The learned Magistrate of the trial Court was of the opinion that Sadul Shahar was adjacent to Ferozpur District of Punjab, where terrorist activities were on rampage in the year 1992. Therefore, he denied the benefit of probation to the accused petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge while sitting in appeal concurred with these reasoning's. But now in the year 1996 such terrorist activities are not reported from Ferozpur District. However, looking to the circumstances of the case when the sword of Damoclas has been hanging over the head of the accused petitioner for 7 years and he has undergone mental agony and incurred financial strain during trial as also during appeal and he has also lived in police and judicial custody for some time, and having regard to the age, character and antecedents of the petitioner as also the nature of offence committed by him, I think it is a fit case in which benefit of probation should be given to the petitioner. 7. It was contended that as minimum sentence is prescribed under the Arms Act, but in view of Jugta Ram v. State, 1981 R.C.C. 1 and Pidar Singh v. State, 1992 Cr.L.R.329 which were followed in Surendra Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 205 there is no bar to give the benefit of probation. 8. Accordingly this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner recorded by the learned Magistrate, it is directed that instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, he be released on probation on his entering into personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) with one sound and solvent security in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the 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. The petitioner is in custody and he shall be released on furnishing such bail bonds as directed above.Revision partly allowed. *******