SUGNA RAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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, RLW 1984 200, Roshan Lal v. The State of Rajasthan , RLW 1984 752, Labh Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Mishri Lal and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan 1989 R Cri. 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.