B.R. Arora, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated January 14, 1991. By which the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner, for offence Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. According to the prosecution, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dchatra, on November 12, 1983, on the information of the informant (MUKHBIR) went to the house of Sugna Ram and on search, an old Topidar-gun was recovered from his hut. On the basis of this recovery, a case Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered and the police, after necessary investigation, presented a challan against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced seven witnesses. The accused, in his defence, examined DW 1 Ganga, who is the sister-in-law of the accused and she has stated that the gun in question was the licensed-gun of her husband and it was recovered at her instance. The learned Magistrate, after trial convicted the accused-petitioner Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentence him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, Dissatisfied with the judgment dated April 24, 1990, passed by the learned Magistrate, convicting and sentencing the accused, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who, by his judgment dated January 14, 1991, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the request was made that the learned trial Court committed an error in not giving the benefit of probation to the accused-appellant. But the learned Sessions Judge refused to grant the benefit of probation to the petitioner on the ground that a minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment has been provided for offence Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and, therefore, the benefit of probation cannot be given to him. It is against this order that the present revision-petition has been filed by the accused Sugna Ram.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged before me so far as the order of conviction is concerned. His only argument is that the learned lower Court was not justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for granting him the benefit of probation. He has submitted that the minimum sentence prescribed under the particular provision is no bar for granting the benefit of probation. In support of the contention, he has placed reliance over: Siya Ram v. The State of Rajasthan 1984 RLW 200, Roshan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan 1984 RLW 752, Labh Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (1986 Cr. LR (Raj.) 1) and Mishri Lal and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1989 R Cr. C 169). The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
5. In the case of Siya Ram, the accused was convicted Under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, the minimum sentence of six months was, also, required to be imposed. But Hon'ble Mr. K.D. Sharma, C.J. (as he then was ) granted the benefit of probation to the accused by observing that minimum sentence is no bar to give benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. In the case of Roshan Lal, the accused was convicted Under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Forest Act and for the offence Under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, the minimum sentence of six months was required to be imposed. But this Court, in that judgment, also, came to the conclusion that providing a provision for a minimum sentence is no ground for refusing the benefit of probation. In the case of Labh Singh, the accused was convicted Under Section 25A of the Indian Arms Act and this Court granted benefit of probation Under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Mishri Lal and others, the accused was granted the benefit of probation Under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act. From the reading of all these authorities on the point, it is, thus clear that merely because a minimum sentence has been provided for an offence, that itself will not amount the barring of the application of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. If the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the benefit of probation or if the Court comes to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused may be given the benefit of probation then the benefit of probation can be given to the accused.
6. I have taken into consideration the fact that the accused is aged about 50 years; he is not a previous convict and the gun in question is a licensed gun of his brother the accused is repenting and wants to get himself reformed and there are no chances of his repeating the offence again. The incident relates to the year 1983 and more than seven years have elapsed. In these circumstances, I think it proper to grant the benefit of probation to the accused-petitioner.
7. In the result, this revision petition, filed by the accused- petitioner, is partly allowed. The conviction Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act is maintained, but, however, instead of sentencing the accused atonce to any imprisonment, I direct that the accused may be released on probation of good conduct for one year on his furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner, with the stipulation that during this period he shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.