JUDGMENT 1. - The State has laid this criminal leave to appeal under Sections 378 (iii) & (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for shot, 'Cr.P.C') against the impugned judgment dated 10th April, 2013 rendered by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 3, Bikaner, in Sessions Case No. 21/2013, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted for the offences under Sections 307, 341 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The learned trial Court has, however, held the accused, Rohitash, is guilty for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. While considering the fact that it was the first offence of the accused and relying on a verdict of this Court in case of Surendra Pal v. State of Rajasthan [1995 Cr.L.R (Raj.) 205] , the learned trial Court, for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, has extended the benefit of probation to the accused. 3. The prosecution story as unfurled from the FIR dated 04.06.2012 is that on the fateful day i.e., 03.06.2012 at about 10:20 PM, injured - Mahaveer Bishnoi, Raju Bishnoi and Gokul Choudhary were travelling on Motorcycle No. RJ-07-SJ-9629 and when the motorcycle reached just opposite a lane of Mahila ITI, one Camper Car came from the opposite side, and a gun shot was fired and due to that fire motorcycle skidded and all three persons fell down. The bullet fire hit on the leg of injured, Mahaveer. Immediately, thereafter due to hue and cry public gathered on the spot and accused, Rohitash, eloped from the scene of incident. On investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against accused, Rohitash, under Section 307, 341 of IPC and under Sections 27 and 3/25 of the Arms Act. To support the prosecution case, five witnesses were examined including the injured. However, none of them have identified the accused and all turned hostile. During trial, Investigating Officer was not examined. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on record held that prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Sections 307, 341 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the accused and as such he was acquitted for the said offence. On consideration of the fact that fire arm was recovered from the possession of the accused, the learned trial Court has found that he is guilty for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. On consideration of the fact that fire arm was recovered from the possession of the accused, the learned trial Court has found that he is guilty for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. For the said offence, the learned trial Court while relying on the verdict of this Court in the case of Surendra Pal (supra) has granted benefit of probation to the accused. 4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment and material available on record. 5. On close scrutiny of the impugned judgment and the other materials on record, I am convinced that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence and other materials on record appropriately and thereafter has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 307, 341 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As a matter of fact, none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution story including the injured thus, the order of acquittal is just and calls for no interference. 6. In the limited scope of judicial review under Section 378 Cr.P.C., the benefit of probation extended to the accused cannot be faulted in the given circumstances, as there was no iota of evidence to show that the fire arm, which was recovered from the accused was used for commission of offence. 7. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant leave in the matter. Consequently, leave is refused and the appeal is dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******