JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Ranveer Singh s/o Bhagirath, b/c Jat r/o Manniwali , Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar, against the judgment dated 19.03.2009 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar in Cri.Appeal No.50/2008 whereby the learned Addl.Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar, in Cri.Case No.340/2005, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under section 3/25 (1 B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 10.08.2005 Pramod Kumar, Station House Officer, Sadulshahar received a message that Raghuveer and Ranveer who are brothers, are doing the business of opium and smack and presently they are at home and within an hour or two, they will go out for supplying the same. On receiving this message , the SHO and his team along with two independent motbirs, reached the house of the accused and on search one pistol of 12 bore and 18 live cartridges were recovered from the accused for which he did not have any licence. After usual investigation, the SHO , Police Station Sadulshahar submitted the challan against the accused and charges were framed and the trial of the case began. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, and the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. No witness was examined in defence. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sadulshahar, by his order dated 20.09.2007, convicted the accused petitioner as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 20.09.2007 and 19.03.2009, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. 4. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 20.09.2007 and 19.03.2009, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge , Sriganganagar dated 19.03.2009 and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrates 1st Class, Sadulshahar dated 20.09.2007, suffers from impropriety, perversity and illegality as both the orders were passed against the law and, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. It was contended that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and no conviction can be passed on such type of evidence which is contrary to each other. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was arrested by the police at 05.10 PM and the pistol was shown to be recovered at 11.00PM. This shows that a false recovery was shown against the accused petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that there is no corroborative evidence against the accused petitioner to connect him with the crime and there is no evidence that the recovered article is a firearm and prayed that the accused may be released on probation. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner should not be released on probation. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 9. The Arms Act 1959 does not exclude the application of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. as well as provisions under Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. The mere fact that a minimum sentence has been prescribed for any offence, is not sufficient to refuse beneficiary probation. Minimum sentence for a particular offence, does not create any bar for extending the benefit of probation either under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act, in a particular case. 10. In the instant case, 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 10.08.2005 and since then the petitioner has undergone mental agony and incurred financial strain during the trial, as also during appeal. He has already been under detention for some time. The alleged incident took place on 10.08.2005 and since then the petitioner has undergone mental agony and incurred financial strain during the trial, as also during appeal. He has already been under detention for some time. Therefore, having regard to the age, character and antecedents 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. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned appellate court, it is directed that instead of sentencing the petitioner 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 and solvent security in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the 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.Revision partly allowed. *******