JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated 9th March, 1978, whereby the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner to 9 month's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- in default thereof to a further rigorous imprisonment for a month was upheld under Section 54 (c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 2. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has contended that fee, learned lower Courts have erred in Saw in not extending the benefits of Section, 36ft Cr.P.C. 1973 to the accused-petitioner. It was contended that the-accused-petitioner is a young person of 25 years and is not a previous convict. It was contended that keeping in ideas new trend in criminology the Legislature in its wisdom enacted Section 360. Cr.P.C. with a view that an attempt should he made to reform the criminal by not sending him to jail and thus save' him from converting, him - into, a hardened criminal. It was further argued that under Section 361, Cr.P.C. 1973 a duty is cast upon the court to state reasons why the benefits under Section 360 Cr.P.C. have not been extended. The attention of the Court was also drawn to a decision by the, Supreme Court reported in 1977 Punjab Law Reporter (79) 580 whereby the benefit's of Section 360,Cr.P.C. were extended by the Supreme Court, reliance was also placed on State v. Rathinavelu, 1973 Cr.L.J. 354 , wherein the benefits' of the provisions of the Probation, of, Offenders Act were extended in spite of the fact that a minimum sentence is prescribed for an offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act, 1966. The offence in question is alleged to have been committed on 21st September, 1978. The maximum, sentence under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act at that time was two vears and fine which may extend to Rs. 2000/- But if a person is found to be, in possession of a workable still for the manufacture of any excisable article he shall be punished' with the minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months and fine of two hundred rupees. Section 54 of Rajasthan Excise Act has undergone an amendment in, 1976 and the sentence of two years imprisonment has been extended to three years. 3. Section 54 of Rajasthan Excise Act has undergone an amendment in, 1976 and the sentence of two years imprisonment has been extended to three years. 3. It has been contended on behalf, of the accused petitioner that he has already remained in custody for a period of 21 days. The ends of justice would be met if he is enlarged on-probation-under the the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has not opposed the extension of the benefits of Section 360, Cr.P.C., 1973 accused-petitioner. 5. The accused is a person of 25 years of age, and has been convicted to 9 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to one months further rigorous imprisonment under Section 54 (c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, The minimum sentence to which an accused could Be awarded is six months as given in the proviso to Section 54 with a fins of Rs. 200/-; The accused is not a previous convict, and comes out of a respectable family. Keeping in view the intention of the Legislature as embodied in Sections 360 and 361, Cr.P.C. 1973, it does not appear unreasonable to extend the benefits of Section 360 Cr.P.C. to the accused petitioner His conviction is sustained. The accused-petitioner is at present in jail. He shall be released on probation if he executes a personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer to be of good behaviour and to maintain peace for a period of two years and to undertake to appear before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ajmer to undergo the sentence so awarded to him provided he is not required in any other case. *******