JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 25.8.99 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the judgment and sentence dated 24.3.99 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar in Cr. Case No. 26/98 convicting the petitioner under Section 3 read with 25 Arms Act and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued only about the quantum of sentence. He has not advanced any argument on the merits of the conviction of the petitioner. It is, therefore, not necessary to narrate the facts of the case. I have also perused the statements of Gurmail Singh and Raj Singh who have been relied upon by the learned two courts below, to reach the finding of conviction of the petitioner of the offence under Section 3 read with 25 Arms Act. I also find the statements of the above witnesses wholly reliable. The learned appellate court has rightly upheld the conviction of the petitioner as stated above. 3. The learned courts below have refused to award the benefit of probation to the petitioner on the ground that possession of illegal arms encourages the commission of offences in the society and is a great danger to the security and safety of the people. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is the first offence against the petitioner. The age of the petitioner is 25 years. He has remained in Jail for one month. It is contended that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to amend himself and he may be released on probation. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contention on the very same grounds, which have been accepted by the learned two courts below. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I have also considered the over all facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that possession of illegal arms must be viewed seriously because such activities do provide facility for a person to commit an offence easily and without any restraint, but at the same time, we have to also consider the facts of the particular case and the quantum of sentence should be judiciously determined. It is true that possession of illegal arms must be viewed seriously because such activities do provide facility for a person to commit an offence easily and without any restraint, but at the same time, we have to also consider the facts of the particular case and the quantum of sentence should be judiciously determined. In this case, the petitioner has been found in possession of one 315 Bore Gun. No ammunition was found in his possession, in view of the over all facts and circumstances, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the already undergone period but to maintain the fine. 5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 3 read with 25 Arms Act is hereby maintained. While reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment from one year to the period already undergone, the fine of Rs. 500/- and in default 3 months simple imprisonment is hereby maintained.Revision Petition partly allowed. *******