JUDGMENT 1. - The case was listed for final hearing but with the consent of both the parties the same is being decided at this stage. 2. Admit. Issue notice. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 27.1.2003 and upheld the conviction recorded under Section 3/25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act against him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, on 23.1.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the findings recorded by both the Courts in this respect but argued that in view of the judgment rendered in Surendrapal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 205 , the sentence may be reduced to the period of detention which the petitioner has already undergone. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the judgment of both the Courts below. 5. Accused was sentenced for the offence under Section 3/25 (1 - B) (a) on the allegation that on 11.7.95 an unlicensed 12 bore pistol and 3 cartridges of the same bore were recovered from the possession of the accused - petitioner. After recording the evidence of prosecution and examining the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC., the learned trial court found the accused - petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 3/25 (1 - B) (a) and convicted the accused - petitioner with two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 6. I have gone through the judgment of both the lower courts and the evidence recorded by the prosecution for proving the charge. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by both the courts which is based on proper appreciation of evidence in right perspective. Therefore, there is no illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 3/25 (1 - B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The conviction of the accused - petitioner is well founded and is maintained. 7. As far as question of sentence is concerned, the Act provides punishment with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less that one year but which may extend to three years but the Court may, for one adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year. 8. 8. It has been held in Surendrapal Singh's case (supra) that the Arms Act does not exclude the application of provisions of Section 360 Cr.RC. as well as those of provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. In Jugta Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 Raj. Cr. Cases 01 , 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 probation. It was further observed that its application, however, depends on the facts of each case as to whether such benefit should be extended to the accused or not. This is trite law that mere prescribing of minimum sentence for a particular offence does not create any bar for extending the benefit of probation either under Section 360, Cr.RC. or under the Probation of Offenders Act in a particular case. A similar view has been taken in Pidar Singh v. State of Raj., 1992 Cr.L.R. 329 . 9. In the facts of the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that accused - petitioner was previous convict or that his conduct has been bad. The alleged incident took place on 11.7.1995. Petitioner has undergone mental agony and incurred financial strain during the trial as also during the appeal. He has already undergone sentence for a period of 2 months and 17 days. At the time when he was brought before the Court (in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2264 , he was about 20 years of age. Therefore, 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 and he should not be denied benefits of the beneficiary probation and it is fit case in which sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone. 10. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining his conviction recorded by learned Magistrate, it is directed that instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, he be released on probation of good conduct, on his entering into personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining his conviction recorded by learned Magistrate, it is directed that instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, he be released on probation of good conduct, on his entering into personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one sound & 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. 11. The seized country made pistol stands confiscated to the State.Revision partly allowed. *******