Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THIS is criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 /401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dt. 02.07.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2012, by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order dt. 23.02.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur convicting the petitioner for offence under Sec. 3 /25 of the Arms Act to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - in default to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. While praying for setting aside the impugned order and judgment passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset did not argue the case on merits and submitted that the petitioner may be released on probation. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in Darshan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in : 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 208 Para 6 of the said judgment reads as under: - 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The Arms Act. 1959 does not exclude the application of provisions of Sec. 360, Cr.P.C., as well as those provisions under probation of Offender Act, 1959. In Jugta Ram vs. State of Rajasthan,, 1981 Raj. Cr.Cases 01, it has been held that unless any Act excludes the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Offender Act, the mere fact that a minimum sentence has been prescribed for any offence, is not sufficient to refuse beneficiary probation. It was further observed that its application, however, depends on the facts of each case as to whether such benefit should be extended to the accused or not. This is trite law that mere prescribing of minimum sentence for a particular offence does not create any bar for extending the benefit of probation either under Sec. 360, Cr.P.C. or under the Probation of Offenders Act in a particular case. A similar view has been taken in Pidar Singh vs. State of Raj.,, 1992 Cr.L.R. 329
(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer so made. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgment as also the material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner has rightly not argued the case on merits. However, there is no reason to reject the prayer of the petitioner to release him on probation. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to show that petitioner was a previous convict or that his conduct or character was not good during the trial or during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner is state to be already undergone 3 months out of total sentence of one year awarded to him. Thus, he has undergone substantial period of sentence. In view of the above, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner recorded by learned Magistrate and affirmed by the appellate Court, it is ordered that petitioner be released on probation for the remaining period of the sentence subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40000/ - to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a direction that he shall appear before the trial Court once in every month. He shall deposit the amount of fine also. The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ;