JUDGMENT 1. -By this revision petition Ganju has challenged his conviction and sentence passed against him for offence under section 3/25 of Arms Act by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sriganganagar and confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no. 1, Sriganganagar on 20.3.1999. He was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated on 17.5.1992 Malkiat Singh ASI was patrolling with his party. It found the petitioner coming from the field side near village Kotha. After seeing police party he sat feigning to make water. He was stopped, searched and then a country made pistol 315 bore with five live cartridges were recovered from him before Kuljeet Singh and Mawa Singh. The petitioner had no licence. He was arrested, Weapon and Five cartridges were seized. After investigation he was challenged before the Magistrate who tried him for the said offence and convicted and sentenced as stated above. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor with their consent on merits and have gone through the record. 4. The settled law about revisions is further reiterated by Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Math Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., JT 1999 (1) SC page 456 , in which it has been observed 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 Jurisdiction 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. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to state any glaring feature of this .case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to state any glaring feature of this .case. Of course two motbirs did not support the case of prosecution but the recovery of unlicensed arm with cartridges has been proved by PW 2 Umed Singh and PW 5 Malkiat Singh. 6. PW 4 Sukh Dev Singh is a witness who examined the arm when the same was received in a sealed packet from the concerned police station. He is an armour in police line Sriganganagar. It was PW 6 Bhopal Singh who deposited the arm and cartridges in malkhana -and sent the same to armour through Bajrang Singh. PW 7 Bajrang Singh has proved the delivery of the same to armour Sukh Dev Singh. In view of this over whelming evidence it was proved that a serviceable arm and ammunition were recovered from petitioner. 7. Confronted with this situation learned counsel for the petitioner cited a number of unreported judgments and a reported judgment given in Darshan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 208 and prayed that the petitioner may be given benefit under Probation of Offenders Act as he has remained in custody for about two months and that he has faced cordial of trial for many years and that there is no allegation that he is involved in any other case. Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose it. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is entitled for benefit under Probation of Offenders Act. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the petitioner recorded by learned Magistrate and confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge it is directed that the petitioner be given benefit under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment it is ordered that he be ,released on entering into a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- together with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. It is further directed that he will give an undertaking that he will not repeat the offence during this period. 10,000/- together with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. It is further directed that he will give an undertaking that he will not repeat the offence during this period. He is in custody and shall be released on furnishing such bail bonds before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sriganganagar.Petition partly allowed. *******