Gopvl Krishan Sharma, J.
1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 22nd July, 1985, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 5/85, whereby he confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dholpur, dated 8th September, 1982 in Criminal Case No. 89/81, convicting the petitioner under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, and sentencing him to 1 year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment.
2. Mr. Kaushik did not argue the case on merits, but he only prayed for releasing the accused petitioner on probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
3. As a very short point is involved in this revision petition, with the consent of both the learned counsel, it is being finally disposed of at this stage.
4. On 12th December, 1978, Excise Inspector Jagdish Prasad Sharma raided the house of the petitioner and there he found about 50 pots of wash and also some other implements for extracting illicit liquor. He also found some bottles of illicit liquor. After seizing the said articles, and completing investigation, he filed a challan against the accused petitioner.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after recording evidence, found that the case against the petitioner was established, and, therefore, he convicted the accused petitioner and sentenced him as mentioned above.
6. The only argument of Mr. Kaushik was that this being the first offence of the petitioner, he should be dealt with leniently and given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, as Mst. Rajkumari, the co-accused has already been released on probation by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that a large quantity of wash, was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, besides all sorts of implements for extracting illicit liquor, and so, no lenient view should be taken in this case.
8. I have considered all the arguments of both the learned counsel and also noted the fact this was the first offence of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be granted the benefit of probation, and specially when he is about 60 years of age.
9. The revision petition is, therefore, partly accepted. The conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner Under Section 54 of the Excise Act, are maintained but, he is given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10. It is, therefore, ordered that accused-petitioner Surgyan Singh be released on probation on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- together with two sureties of Rs. 2,500/- each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dholpur, for keeping the peace and being of good behaviour for a period of two years. In case, he repeats any such offence during this period of 2 years, he be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence awarded to him by the lower court and confirmed by this court.