Judgment :- 1. A very short, but fairly important, question is raised in this revision petition. 2. The petitioner has been convicted under R.126P of the Defence of India Rules (the Gold Control Rules of 1963) and been sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The counsel of the petitioner submits that in view of the advanced age (80 or 81) of the petitioner, who is a first offender, in view of the fact that the Department) has already imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and has also confiscated the gold and in view of the fact that the Gold Control Rules have been substantially relaxed, the petitioner might be dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. The Central Government Pleader brings to my notice that under R.126P a minimum sentence is provided, so that the question whether in such a case the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act can be applied may be considered. 3. Under some statutes minimum punishments are provided. Such punishments appear in two forms, one, a minimum punishment for the first offence and enhanced punishments for subsequent offences, & two, a minimum punishment irrespective of the fact whether the offence is the first or the subsequent. The case before me is of the second category. In a case of the first category, the argument that the Probation of Offenders Act is excluded may have more force than in a case of the second category. However, my opinion on the question is that there is no distinction between the two cases. 4. The Probation of Offenders Act is to be applied to offences of the types mentioned therein arising under any penal statute, not necessarily the Indian Penal Code. The court has to see that the conditions mentioned in the relevant sections of the Act are satisfied; and the court has also to exercise the discretion conferred on it in a strictly judicial manner. If any statute under which an offender is dealt with clearly indicates that the legislature intended that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act should not apply to offences under that statute, then the Act may not apply. Otherwise, the Act must apply to all offences of the types mentioned therein if the conditions laid down are satisfied. If any statute under which an offender is dealt with clearly indicates that the legislature intended that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act should not apply to offences under that statute, then the Act may not apply. Otherwise, the Act must apply to all offences of the types mentioned therein if the conditions laid down are satisfied. In S.3 and 4 of the Act there is the non obstante clause, which is sure indication that the provisions apply notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. Thus, the only question for consideration is whether the mere fixation of a minimum sentence is a sufficient indication of the intention of the legislature to do away with the discretion conferred on the court by the Probation of Offenders Act, i. e., to do away even with the non obstante clause. 5. Rule 126P provides that whoever does certain specified acts or whoever fails to do certain things shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not more than two years and also with fine. This provision, in my opinion, is not a clear and definite indication of the intention to do away with the discretion conferred on the court under the Probation of Offenders Act and the effect of the non obstante clause. Valuable discretion is vested in the court under the Probation of Offenders Act with a purpose; and unless the same is taken away by clear and unambiguous words, the court will not lose it. 6. On merits, I feel this is a fit case which should be dealt with under S.3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner is a first offender; he has already been sufficiently punished by the fine and the forfeiture imposed by the Department; he is 81 years of age; and as indications now stand, there is every possibility that the Gold Control Rules will be repealed in the near future, in which event, there is not even the possibility of the petitioner committing the offence over again. In the circumstances, I confirm the conviction of the petitioner under R.126P, but release him after due admonition under S.3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.