JUDGMENT 1. - By impugned order learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his judgment dated 21.7.1998 convicted the accused appellant under the said section and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to one months imprisonment. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP. 3. The facts in brief are that on 16 8.1991 Om Prakash Kataria, SHO of Police Station Hindumalkot, received a secret information on the basis of which he along with police personnel went to village Hindumalkote. The accused was intercepted in the way and it was found that the accused petitioner was carrying a 12 bore pistol and a live cartridge without licence. The arm was sealed and the accused petitioner was arrested. After due investigation, challan was submitted. When the charge was read over to the accused petitioner he denied his indictment and claimed trial. Learned Magistrate examined quite a good number of witnesses who were produced by the prosecution. They have all proved that 12 bore pistol Article-1 and live cartridge Article 2 were recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner. This finding has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned counsel fort he petitioner has not rightly challenged it during his argument. His only contention is that the petitioner may be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as he is a young man of 25 years and has been facing trial for last 7 or 8 years. Reliance has been placed on Surendrapal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 205 , and it has been submitted that the petitioner has undergone mental agony and he is not a previous convict or has any bad antecedent Learned PP does not oppose it. 4. 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 16.8.1991. Since then the petitioner has under gone mental agony and incurred financial strain during the trial as also during the appeal. He has also remained in custody for some time. 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 16.8.1991. Since then the petitioner has under gone mental agony and incurred financial strain during the trial as also during the appeal. He has also remained in custody for some time. Having regard to the age, character and antecedent 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. 5. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner recorded by learned Magistrate and confirmed by Sessions Judge, it is directed that instead of sentencing him he be released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one sound and 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 said arm recovered from the accused petitioner stands confiscated to the State. *******