Cr.R. 26/2004 29.09.2010 Present: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for a term of one year simple imprisonment under Section 25 of Arms Act and fine of Rs.300/- and simple imprisonment for a term of three months under Section 506 India Penal Code. Both sentences to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Lal Dass alias Jhakhu preferred an application under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code before Sub Division Magistrate stating that on 9.2.1998, there was a ‘Katha’ in the house of Phulu Devi and at about 9.00 PM accused Bhagat Ram, who was in drunken state, came to the venue and threw away the vegetable and rice and obstructed the people present in the function from participating in the religious ceremonies. It was further stated that the accused was over powered by the people present with great difficulty and while returning home, the accused threatened the complainant and his son that he would come back and teach them a lesson. The accused came back with the licensed gun of his father and fired in the air near the place where the ‘Katha’ was being performed. This act was committed in the presence of Shri Devi Ram, Pradhan and Brij Lal. Accordingly FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 336 and 506 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, offences under Section 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act were added. On the evidence of the prosecution, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year for offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act only. The Court held that it is established that the accused gone to home and brought the gun of his father Durje Ram and fired one round in the air. The Court has relied upon the evidence of the complainant PW-1, Chet Ram. This testimony is supported by the testimony of Udam Ram (PW-2), both of whom were present on the spot and witnessed the incident. The report of the Central Forensic Science laboratory also confirms that one cartridge has been fired from the SBBL gun which has been taken into possession by the prosecution and proved as belonging to the father of the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is innocent and the occurrence has not taken place as alleged, as the gun was recovered from the father of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is clear from the prosecution case that the petitioner had gone home and returned with gun of his father and fired in the air. I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence or conclusion as arrived at by the Courts below. On the aspect of sentence learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given benefit of Probation of Offenders’ Act, as he has a family consisting of wife and three children studying in the school. Moreover, the petitioner himself is working as labourer. The offence was not committed by the petitioner intentionally, but it was happened on the spur of the movement. By an order dated 7.9.2010, the report of the Probation Officer was called and has been received in this Court. According to the report, the petitioner is working as a daily waged labourer. Both his father and mother are dead and he has a family consisting of himself, his wife, two sons and one daughter, all of whom are studying. The report further says that there is no other case pending against him and that his behaviour with the residents of the village is also not offensive. He is earning his living as an agricultural labourer. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of. The petitioner is granted the benefit of Section 4 of the probation of Offenders Act on the following terms:- (a) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial magistrate, Karsog, within three months from today undertaking to keep peace and be of a good behaviour for two years. (b) That petitioner shall undertake not to indulge in any illegal, criminal, anti-social activities; (c) The Probation Officer is further directed to supervise the behaviour of the petitioner during this period; (d) The petitioner shall further undertake that in case of violation of any terms of his bond, it shall be forfeited forthwith and that he will be liable to serve sentence of imprisonment as imposed upon him. The petition is disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge September 29, 2010 Ls