JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioner stands convicted on his own plea of guilty u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and has been sentenced thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. 52 bottles of illicitly distilled liquor were recovered from the possession of the Petitioner. On the verify first day of his appearance in Court, and after the substance of, accusation was explained to him, he, admitted his guilt. He was thus found guilty; u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act on his own admission, and convicted and sentenced thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for one month. In appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed. 3. In this revision the only point raised by Mr. Sahoo, the learned council for the Petitioner, is that the Petitioner on the date of his trial was only 20 years old as would appear from the records of his examination u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner thus being below 21 years of age should have been released after due-admonition u/s 3 or on probation of good conduct u/s 4 as provided u/s 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter-referred to as the Act). This aspect of the matter was not raised either before the trial Court or the appellate Court. True it is that u/s 11 of the Act this question can be can passed before an appellate or revisional Court. 4. Section 6 of the Act is as follows: 6. Restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age:-(1) When any person under twenty-one years is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life) the Court by which the person is found guilty shall not? sentence him to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it should not be desirable to deal with him u/s 3 or Section 4, and if the Court passes any sentence of imprisonment on the offender it shall record its reasons for doing so. (2) For the purpose of satisfying itself whether it would not be desirable to deal u/s 3 or Section 4 with an offender referred to in Sub-section (1), the Court shall call for a report from the probation officer and consider the report, if any, and any other information available to it relating to the character and physical and mental condition of the offender. This section, as it does not prohibit the passing of an order of imprisonment against an accused found guilty of an offence, though he is under 21 years of age. All that it requires is that the Court has to record in reasons, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, for sentencing such an offender to imprisonment. The omission to record reasons would at the most be an irregularity and will not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, Dasappa and Anr. v. State of Mysore AIR 1965 Mys. 224. This aspect of the matter was not raised and canvassed in the two Courts below, and so the non-recording of the reasons as mentioned in Section 6 of the Act would not amount to an illegality vitiating the judgment of the Courts below. 5. u/s 6(1), the Court, in sentencing such an offender to imprisonment must be satisfied for reasons recorded, that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender it is not desirable to deal with him under Sections 3 and 4. u/s 6(2) of the Act, for the purpose of satisfying itself whether or not it is desirable to deal with the offender under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the Court shall can for a report from the Probation Officer, and after considering his report, if any, and on taking into consideration other information available to the Court, relating to the character and physical and mental condition of the offender, it should proceed to pass an order either to sentence the Petitioner with imprisonment or to deal with him u/s 3 or Section 4 of the Act. No report obviously was caned for from the Probation Officer in this case. In my opinion, in view of the very nature of the offence committed by the Petitioner, such a report from the Probation Officer would not he of any avail in this case. No report obviously was caned for from the Probation Officer in this case. In my opinion, in view of the very nature of the offence committed by the Petitioner, such a report from the Probation Officer would not he of any avail in this case. The Petitioner is found guilty u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act for the possession of 52 bottles of Illicitly distilled liquor which were recovered from him. 6. In part IV of the Constitution dealing with the Directive principles of State policy it is specifically provided in Article 47 that the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health." Thus the policy of the State, as per the specific provision in our Constitution, is to prohibit the consumption of intoxicating liquor, and the idea of prohibition is connected with the health of the general public, and such in the interest of the society. In Sheoshanker v. State AIR 1951 Nag. 58, it is observed that it is incontestable that intoxicating liquor is not an innocuous article and the same must be regarded as a noxious object, and therefore it cases to be a legitimate object of ?property? or a legitimate object of commerce. The law therefore, prohibit?s clandestine possession of such liquor for the purpose of protecting public health and to safeguard social interest. Liquor being a noxious object and the use of the same not being in the public interest, the Petitioner was certainly indulging in a highly unsocial, objectionable and pernicious Act endangering public health and as such his case cannot be regarded as of such a nature as to require consideration under the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. 7. The offence committed by the Petitioner being of such a nature as discussed above, it is not a fit case to be dealt with under the provisions of the Act. 8. In this view of the matter the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the Petitioner is justified and does not require any interference. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed