JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-petitioner-Kartar Singh has challenged his conviction by this revision. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Facts in brief are the Gyan Singh A.S.I. of P.S. Chunavar Distt. Ganganagar was on patrolling duty on 24.7.1989. He received a secret information from a motbir on the basis of which he went towards fields in Sagarwala. He found that accused- petitioner started moving towards the fields after seeing the police. He was checked and interrogated. During search a pistol with one live cartridge was recovered from him. He had no licence. The arm and ammunition were recovered and seized. Case was registered at P.S. Chunavar and investigation was conducted. Thereafter challan was submitted before the learned Magistrate. Petitioner was tried by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. During trial charge was read with and sustained to him on 26.4.1990. He denied his indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. The accused-petitioner was examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. He produced a defence witness. Thereafter learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under section 3/25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo two months imprisonment. No order for confiscation of arm was made. 4. Accused-petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated 3.3.1999. Hence this revision has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he did not propose to challenge the finding of guilt as there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the crime and that the two Courts below have given a concurrent finding of guilt. He is right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider such a point in State of Kerala v. Puttumder Singh Jat Pavedan Mamtoodiri etc., Judgment Today 1999 (1) SC page 486 wherein is has been held that in its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory nature exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice, but the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. There is no glaring defect in the finding of facts arrived by the two Courts below. 6. Then learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that petitioner be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as at the time of event he was hardly 25-26 years old and that he has already suffered imprisonment from 24.7.1989 to 8.8.1989 and thereafter he is in custody since 3.3.1999. He submitted that the offence relates to the month of May 1989 and since then the petitioner has undergone a lot of mental agony as well as financial loss. reliance has been placed on Surendra Pal Singh v. Sate of Raj., Cr.L.R. 1995 page 205 and Darshan Singh S/o Bakar Singh v. State of Raj., Cr.L.R. 1995 page 208 . 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer submitting that the Act provides minimum sentence of one year. Such a question arose before this Court in Darshan Singh S/o Bakar Singh v. State of Raj . and it relying on Jugta Ram v. State of Raj. 1981 Raj. Cr. Cases Page 01 . benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was given to accused-petitioner. In Jugta Ram's case it has been held that unless any Act excludes the applicability of Section 360, Cr.P.C. 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 provision. It was further observed that its application, however, depends on the facts of each case as to whether such benefit should be extended to an accused or not. Similar view has been taken in Pidar Singh v. State of Raj., 1992 Cr.L.R. Page 329 . It was further observed that its application, however, depends on the facts of each case as to whether such benefit should be extended to an accused or not. Similar view has been taken in Pidar Singh v. State of Raj., 1992 Cr.L.R. Page 329 . Benefit of probation can very well be given in a case when offence is proved against the accused under section 3/25(IB)(a) of the Arms Act. Following this view I myself gave benefit of probation to Pappu @ Pappi in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 87/99 decided on 23.2.1999. 8. So far as the merits to grant probation to the petitioner are concerned it may be stated that the petitioner has faced trial for a very long period. There is nothing on record to show that he was a previous convict or his conduct has been doubtful or questionable. Definitely he has undergone mental agony during the last ten years as well as has incurred financial losses during the trial as well as during the appeal. He has also remained in custody for the period as stated above. Having regard to the age and antecedents of the petitioner as also the nature of offence committed by him I feel that it is a fit case wherein petitioner should be released on probation of good conduct. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned Magistrate and confined by the learned 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. I0,000/- (with one sound and solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to appear and receive 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 before the trial Court that during the said period he shall not commit any offence punishable under the Arms Act. The arm recovered from the accused-petitioner stands confiscated to the State. *******