JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 21.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 01/2004: Amit Singh, Meenu @ Manjeet Singh, Harendra Singh, Lalit Kumar, Rinku Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Under Section 399 IPC 2 years' R.I. Rs. 500/- each Two Months' S.I. Under Section 402 IPC 2 years' R.I. Rs. 500/- each Two Months' S.I. Amit Singh and Lalit Kumar: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act 1 year's R.I. Rs. 300/- each One Month's S.I. Meenu @ Manjeet Singh, Rinku Singh, Harendra Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act 1 year's R.I. Rs. 300/- each One Month's S.I. All the substantive sentences awarded to the accused were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel Shri Bora representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently urged that conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 399 and Section 402 IPC cannot be sustained because the evidence of the star prosecution eye witness Rashid Mohammed (PW-20), who claims to have joined the so-called unlawful assembly formed by the accused, while they were planning the alleged dacoity, is far from convincing and deserves to be discarded. He urges that the witness did not state that the FIR (Ex. P/25) was registered on the basis of information provided by him to the SHO. He further contended that the Parcha Kaymi (Ex. P/24) does not bear the signatures of Rashid Mohammed. Neither, in the Parcha Kaymi nor in the previous police statement of Rashid Mohammed, is it mentioned that he overheard the accused planning that they would be looting any particular bank. But, while deposing in the court, he made a significant improvement from the previous versions and stated that in his presence, the accused were hatching a pertinent design to loot The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, the Krishni Mandi Branch, Bhilwara. He thus urged that this allegation of Rashid Mohammed is a sheer improvement from his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. He thus urged that this allegation of Rashid Mohammed is a sheer improvement from his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. D/6) with which he was confronted during his cross-examination and he could not explain this significant deviation. Thus, as per Shri Bora, charge for the offence under Section 399/402 IPC cannot be sustained against any of the appellants. He further submits that the appellants Amit Singh and Lalit Kumar, who were also convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a Deshi Katta each, were respectively 19 and 20 years of age when the offence was committed. As such, these appellants are entitled to be released on probation as per law. He further submitted that from the possession of the appellants Rinku Singh, Meenu @ Manjeet Singh and Harendra Singh, recovery of a knife and two live cartridges each has been shown. He urged that the recovery of live cartridges, apart from being obviously concocted, does not amount to any offence. He further submitted that mere possession of knives, in absence of any evidence to show that the same were not meant for industrial, agricultural or domestic purposes, mere possession cannot be construed to be an offence in view of the notification dated 29.01.2000 issued by the Department of Home, State of Rajasthan (Ex. P/22). Regarding the appellants Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi from whom a Gupti each is said to have been recovered, the contention of Shri Bora was that these appellants have also been convicted for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and in absence of any material to show that they had any previous criminal antecedents, they too are entitled to benefit of probation. In support of his contentions, Shri Bora relied upon the following judgments: (i) Moti Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1690 ; (ii) Mohd. Hashim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2017)2 SCC 198 ; (iii) Man Singh @ Vijay Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 391/1995), decided on 21.02.2017; and (iv) Nawab Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 248/1990), decided on 29.03.2012, and urged that there is no prohibition under the Arms Act that a person convicted for the offences therein, can be denied benefit of probation. vs. The State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 391/1995), decided on 21.02.2017; and (iv) Nawab Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 248/1990), decided on 29.03.2012, and urged that there is no prohibition under the Arms Act that a person convicted for the offences therein, can be denied benefit of probation. Thus, he urged that all the appellants, deserve to be released on probation under Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. On these grounds, Shri Bora implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the conviction of the appellants so far as the offence under Section 399/402 IPC is concerned and extend the benefit of probation to the appellants so far as the offences under Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act are concerned. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He urged that the evidence of the Constable Rashid Mohammed (PW-20) is natural and convincing. He had no animosity with the appellants whatsoever which could have persuaded him to give false evidence against them. He was assigned plain clothes reconnaissance duty and he casually joined the group of the appellants and overheard them discussing that they planned to loot a bank. The witness won over confidence of the accused persons whereafter, they asked him to facilitate a motorcycle so that the robbery could be perpetrated smoothly. Rashid Mohammed took this opportunity to go back to the police station where he informed the SHO Ummed Singh (PW-19) of the plan of dacoity being hatched by the accused which he had overheard. Ummed Singh immediately constituted a team of officials and in addition thereto, he informed the nearby police stations; a number of police teams surrounded the accused persons who started firing towards them in an attempt to escape. The offenders were apprehended and when the search was made, recoveries as below were effected from their personal possession: (i) One countrymade pistol and two live cartridges and one empty cartridge from Amit Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P/9), (ii) Two live cartridges and one knife from Rinku Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P/10), (iii) Two live cartridges and one knife from Meenu @ Manjeet Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P/11), (iv) Two cartridges and one knife from Harendra Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P/9), (ii) Two live cartridges and one knife from Rinku Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P/10), (iii) Two live cartridges and one knife from Meenu @ Manjeet Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P/11), (iv) Two cartridges and one knife from Harendra Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P/12), (v) One countrymade pistol, one live cartridge, one empty cartridge and one map from Lalit Kumar vide recovery memo (Ex. P/13), (vi) Gupti with cover from Dharmendra Singh vide recovery memo (Ex. P/14), and (vii) Gupti with cover from Robin Tyagi vide recovery memo (Ex. P/15). He thus urges that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by trial court does not require any interference whatsoever. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have perused the impugned judgment. I have also re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 6. At the outset, it may be noted that the significant allegation made by the prosecution that the two accused Amit Singh and Lalit Kumar, who were holding Deshi Kattas, fired at the police party, was discarded by the trial court and the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC by the impugned Judgment. The only evidence led by the prosecution for establishing the charge under Section 399/402 IPC against the accused, was that of Rashid Mohammed (PW-20) who was posted as a constable at the Police Station Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara. Upon appreciating his testimony, it is revealed that on 31.07.2003, in the morning at about 9 O' Clock, he was assigned plain clothes duty by the SHO Ummed Singh to search out for the accused of some incidents of theft which had taken place in the jurisdiction of Police Station Kotwali and Pratap Nagar. He claimed to have reached the outskirts of R.C. Vyas Colony where, he overheard 6-7 persons talking to each other behind the bushes. He stealthily crept up to these persons who became surprised on noticing his presence. After winning over the confidence of these persons, Rashid Mohammed joined them. They were allegedly talking that they needed a means of transport and if the same could be made available, they could easily indulge in some incidents. Rashid Mohammed allegedly inquired from them as to what exactly had they planned. After winning over the confidence of these persons, Rashid Mohammed joined them. They were allegedly talking that they needed a means of transport and if the same could be made available, they could easily indulge in some incidents. Rashid Mohammed allegedly inquired from them as to what exactly had they planned. On this, the accused replied that they could loot the Krishi Mandi Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur because the guard posted there was very weak. Rashid Mohammed then inquired from them as to whether they had assembled only for this purpose on which, the accused affirmed that they had made preparation for this job only. The precise words used by Rashid Mohammed, in his evidence, in this regard are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: ^^fQj eSa mu O;fDr;ksa ds ikl esa cSB x;k vkSj esa mu yksxks ls vkil esa ckrphr djrs gq;s eSa mu es ?kqy fey x;k fQj vfer us dgk fd ds gesa lk/ku dh vko';drk gS fd dgha fdlh txg lk/ku fey tk, rks ge vkjke ls okjnkr dj ldrs gSA vkSj ,d dkys jax dh Lisys.Mj eksVjlkbfdy rks gekjs ikl esa gS vkSj ,d eksVjlkbZfdy dh O;oLFkk gks tk;s rks vkjke ls okjnkr dj ysaxsA rks eSus dgk fd vius dks dke D;k djuk gS oSls rks geus dgha txg ns[k j[kh gS exj d`f"k eaMh ds vanj tks ,l chchts cSad gS mles 'kke dks ;k fnu esa dksbZ ,slk etcwr xkMZ ugh jgrk gSA blfy;s ml d`f"k eaMh okys okys cSad dks vkjke ls yqV ldrs gSA bl ij eSusa dgk fd vki lHkh yksx cSad MdSrh ls lger gS rks mUgkusa ,d gh Loj esa dgk fd ge lHkh yksx iwjh rS;kjh ls blh dke ds fy;s vk;s gSA 7. Thereafter, Rashid Mohammed assured these persons that he would go and arrange for a motorcycle. He went to the Police Station, told SHO Ummed Singh (PW-19) of the plan being hatched by the boys; apprised him of the fact that they were armed and then, police action followed. It may be stated here that the prosecution did not prove even a single Rojnamcha entry pertaining to the departure of any of the police teams from the police stations convened for apprehending the accused. It may be stated here that the prosecution did not prove even a single Rojnamcha entry pertaining to the departure of any of the police teams from the police stations convened for apprehending the accused. In my opinion, recording of this significant information given by Rashid Mohammed in the Rojnamcha and proving the relevant entry in evidence was imperative for testing veracity of the purely hypothetical seeming story put-forth by the prosecution. 8. Be that as it may, it may be further mentioned here that the Parcha Kaymi (Ex. P/24) which was lodged by Shri Ummed Singh, SHO on returning back to the police station after having apprehended the accused persons, does not bear the signatures of Rashid Mohammed. Also, the events which Rashid Mohammed claimed to have witnessed at the place where accused had allegedly formed the unlawful assembly and where they hatched the so-called conspiracy, were not recorded at the police station in the Rojnamcha which was a requirement of law. It may further be mentioned here that in the Parcha Kaymi (Ex. P/24), there is no reference that the seven accused persons were overheard by Rashid Mohammed conspiring to loot the Krishi Mandi Branch of SBBJ at Bhilwara which fact was stated by him by way of a sheer improvement at the trial for the first time. Rashid Mohammed was confronted with his police statement (Ex. D/6) regarding this important aspect of the case and he admitted that, while giving the statement to the I.O., he did not state that the accused disclosed their names to him or that they were conspiring to loot specifically the Krishi Mandi Branch of SBBJ, Bhilwara and only stated that they were conspiring to loot a bank. The admissions made by Rashid Mohammed which are in total conflict with his police statement (Ex. The admissions made by Rashid Mohammed which are in total conflict with his police statement (Ex. D/6) are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh-6 es eSua eqfYtekuks }kjk eq>s uke crkuk ckr eSus vius c;ku esa ugh crkbZ vkSj okjnkr djus dh ckr eSus vius iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh&6 esa crk nh FkhA esjs iqfyl c;ku lwpuk vkfn nsus ds ckn esa gq;s FksA eqfYteksa us eq>s d`f"k mit eaMh ,lchchts cSad dh ywV us dh ckr dks eq>s crk;k Fkk vkSj mldks u{kk Hkh crk;k FkkA d`f"k mit eaMh esa tks cSad gS mldks yqVus dh ckr eSusa vius iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh&6 esa ugh fy[kkbZ fQj dgk fd eSusa rks mDr ckr dks fy[kokbZ Fkh fdUrq izn'kZ Mh&6 esa fy[kh ;k ugha fy[kh ;g eSa ugha crk ldrk gwWA eqfYteku }kjk cSd dks yqVus dk ,d gh Loj esa dguk vkSj lgefr trkuk dh ckr dks vkbZ dks crk nh Fkh fdUrq vkbZ vks blesa D;ksa ugha fy[kh ;g eSa ugha crk ldrk gwWA^^ 9. From an overall analysis of these material and significant infirmities in the statement of Rashid Mohammed, I am of the firm view that the prosecution theory regarding the accused having been overheard by Rashid Mohammed while hatching a conspiracy to loot a bank; to be specific the Krishi Mandi Branch of SBBJ, Bhilwara is nothing but a sheer exaggeration/embellishment which cannot be believed and the said allegation has to be discarded. As a consequence, the finding recorded by the impugned judgment while holding the appellants guilty for the charge under Sections 399/402 IPC is absolutely unsustainable as the same is not based on apposite appreciation of evidence available on record. Thus, the finding and the conviction of the appellants for this charge cannot be sustained. 10. Shri Bora did not seriously question the conviction of the appellants Amit Singh and Lalit Kumar for the charge under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and the appellants Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Regarding the accused Meenu @ Manjeet Singh, Rinku Singh and Harendra Singh, the contention of Shri Bora was that the prosecution has vaguely mentioned that these accused were carrying knives. Regarding the accused Meenu @ Manjeet Singh, Rinku Singh and Harendra Singh, the contention of Shri Bora was that the prosecution has vaguely mentioned that these accused were carrying knives. However, as per him, this bald allegation without proper clarification in terms of the notification dated 29.01.2000 issued by the Home Department of Government of Rajasthan, the mere recovery of the knives from these accused cannot be construed as amounting to an offence under the Arms Act. Without prejudice to the above, Shri Bora submitted that there being no prohibition under the Arms Act against grant of probation, all the accused deserve to be extended benefit of probation considering the fact that the offence took place more than 16 years ago and that the accused have no criminal antecedents. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this submission of Shri Bora as well. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and am of the view that the conviction of the appellants for the offence under the Arms Act as recorded by the trial court does not warrant any interference whatsoever. The weapons, referred to supra, were recovered when personal search of the appellants was undertaken. The note appended in the notification dated 29.01.2000 is meant to provide an exception regarding the knives, Chhuras and Gandasis which are meant for industrial, agricultural business or domestic purposes. The length of the blades of the knives recovered from the accused, as per the seizure memos, was 19 cms. each. Manifestly, such knives would generally not be of use for the purposes provided by way of the exception in the above notification. In addition thereto, the accused would have to take a plea to prove that the knives were meant for any of such exceptions. No such plea was taken by the accused when they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere in the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court for the offences under Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act respectively. However, I am indeed persuaded by the submission of Shri Bora that the appellants deserve to be extended benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused Amit Singh and Lalit Kumar were below 21 years of age when the offence was committed. However, I am indeed persuaded by the submission of Shri Bora that the appellants deserve to be extended benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused Amit Singh and Lalit Kumar were below 21 years of age when the offence was committed. Thus, they are entitled to benefit of probation as per the mandatory requirement of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Arms Act does not prescribe any prohibition against grant of probation in case of conviction under Section 4/25 of the Act. There is no material on the record of the case that any of the appellants is having any criminal antecedents. The accused appellants Meenu @ Manjeet Singh, Rinku Singh, Harendra Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Robin Tyagi were convicted for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and as such, they too deserve benefit of probation on the ratio of Man Singh and Nawab Singh's cases respectively. 12. Thus, the appeal deserves acceptance in part. The conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 399/402 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of this charge. However, conviction of the respective appellants as recorded by the trial court for the offence under Section 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act are hereby affirmed but while maintaining their conviction as recorded by the trial court, it is directed that instead of sentencing them immediately, they shall be given benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act upon their entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one sound and solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of next two years from today and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The appellants shall also furnish an undertaking to the trial court that they shall not commit any offence during the said period. The seized arms stand confiscated to the State. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. 13. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. 14. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.