- (1.) ADMIT. A notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. And, with the consent of both the learned counsel, this revision petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.
(2.) PETITIONER Mithusingh was challaned u/s. 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya. After completing the trial, he was found guilty of the offence charged against him, and was sentenced to 6 months' R. l. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1-1/2 months' SI. Then, an appeal was preferred, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh, dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and the sentence awarded by the trial court. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court has power to grant benefit of probation u/s. 360, Cr. P. C. to the accused, and in support of his argument, he relied on the case of Labhsingh vs. State of Rajasthan (1 ). Considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel. It is correct that the minimum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under the Indian Arms Act, is of 6 months, but, as is laid down in the case of Durgadas vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh (2) even when a statute prescribes a minimum sentence for an offence, the court has discretion to impose a lesser sentence, and for that, reasons have to be recorded. It means that where there is a minimum sentence prescribed under the Ad, then, the Court in its discretion, can award a lesser sentence. It is not the law that in all circumstances, the Court has no power to award a lesser punishment. No doubt, the Court has to see and record its reasons for that. In the present case, the petitioner was found to be in possession of a country-made revolver, for which, he had no licence. From the judgments of the lower courts, I find that there is no previous conduct of the petitioner on the record, nor is there anything which is in adverse to the conduct of the petitioner. He has already been in jail for 22 days. In such circumstances, if the benefit of S. 360, Cr. P. C. is granted to the petitioner, in my opinion, that would be just and proper and would meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the revision petition is partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner u/s. 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, is maintained, but, the sentence awarded to him by the court below, is set aside, and in stead of sentencing him to any imprisonment, it is directed that he be released on probation of good conduct, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each, to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya, for maintaining the peace and being of good conduct and not to repeat such offence during the period of two years. If any such offence is committed by the petitioner during this period of two years, he shall appear before the trial court to receive the sentence awarded to him by it. One month's time is allowed to the petitioner to submit his personal and surety bonds before the Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya. . ;