ORDER
Mohd. Yamin, J.
1. This revision has been preferred by accused petitioner Jagjeet Singh against the order of his conviction and sentence.
2. Briefly stated, on 18-8-1987 C. I. Richhpal Singh of Sriganganagar received a secret information from mukhbir that a person was carrying unlicensed pistol and was going towards D. A. V. School. On the basis of this information the said C.I. alongwith other police officials went there. Petitioner Jagjeet Singh, after seeing the police personnel, started running but he was apprehended and was searched. He was found in possession of a 32 bore pistol without licence which was taken in possession. First information report was lodged and after investigation challan was submitted against the petitioner. When the charge was read over the petitioner he denied the same and claimed trial. Then the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. Accused petitioner was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. He did not produce any witness in defence. After hearing both the parties learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 23-12-1989 convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. An appeal was preferred against the judgment which was decided on 7-7-1990 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar who maintained the conviction and sentence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
4. During his argument learned counsel Shri M. L. Garg did not challenge the finding of guilt which was confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. He is right because Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Puttumana IIIath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 1 JT (SC) 456 : 1999 Cri LJ 1443, has held that evidence once appreciated by trial Court and reappreciated by appellate Court cannot be further reappreciated by revisional Court except in very rare circumstances and only when some glaring features are pointed out which might have caused injustice to the accused. In the present case no such glaring feature appears to be present, therfore, the finding of guilt cannot be altered.
5. Learned counsel Shri Garg submitted that this Court in Pappu alias Pappi v. State of Rajasthan (1999) 1 Raj Cri C 319, gave benefit of probation in such a case. He submitted that the accused petitioner was caught on 18-8-1987 and ever since then he has been undergoing the mental tension and Sword of Democles is hanging over his head. He has not only suffered mentally but has also suffered financially and it is a fit case in which benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the accused petitioner. He has also suffered sentence for some time and in my view it will be in the interest of justice not to send him back to jail and he should be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.
6. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused petitioner is maintained under Section 3/25 of Arms Act but he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, instead of sentencing him it is direct that he be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- together with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon for keeping peace and be of good behaviour and not to repeat such offence within a period of two years. He shall submit the bail bonds within a period of two months from today.