JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 03.01.2013 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad dismissing appeal filed by petitioner-accused against judgment of conviction dated 05.01.2011 and order of sentence dated 06.01.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehabad vide which petitioner-accused was convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below. 3. Briefly stated, on 6.1.2011 petitioner-accused was apprehended by the police party while on checking duty and on search one country-made pistol .32 bore was recovered from the possession of petitioner. 4. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against petitioner-accused, who faced trial. He was convicted and sentenced by learned trial court as aforementioned. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. 5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner at the time of issuing of notice of motion that he did not want to press the present revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. Hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgments passed by both the courts below convicting petitioner-accused for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 6. However, so far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that he is not a previous convict and he was young person of 25 years of age at the time of this occurrence. It is further submitted that he is having small children and aged parents to look after. It is also contended that he is not involved in any other case. It is further submitted that he is having small children and aged parents to look after. It is also contended that he is not involved in any other case. It is further submitted that he has already undergone more than eight months of the sentence out of one year. Hence, it is contended that he be given benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. He has also placed reliance upon judgment rendered by this Court in Mann Dev v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) RCR(Crl.) 597, wherein also the case was of recovery of country-made pistol and however, taking into consideration the antecedents of accused, he was ordered to be released on probation. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(4) AICLR 842, another decision of this Court. In that case as well, accused was given benefit of probation for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. He has also placed reliance upon Sudhir v. State of Haryana, 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 336, another judgment of this Court in which benefit of probation was given to the accused charged for commission of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In another judgment rendered by this Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 429, accused was ordered to be released on probation for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act for recovery of country-made pistol. 7. Hence, taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which benefit of probation should be granted to petitioner-accused. 8. Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While maintaining the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that petitioner is directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial court undertaking that during this period, he will keep peace and be of good behaviour and he be called upon to receive the sentence in case of breach of any condition of the bond. 9. Disposed of accordingly. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————