JUDGMENT 1. - Perused the order dated November 13, 1980 of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra and the order dated September 26, 1980 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barmer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for 7 days. The petitioner has been convicted under section 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act (No. 17, of 1969) hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). He was convicted on a plea of guilt as he was found in possession of one bottle of Rum (liquor). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that though the j offence under section 4 (2) of the Act is punishable with two years imprisonment and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and with the minimum of six months imprisonment and of fine of not less than two hundred rupees but still it does not exclude the applicability of the provisions of S. 360 Cr.P.C or Probation of Offenders Act, (No. 20 of 1958) (here referred to as `the Act of 1958'). The accused petitioner was found in possession of one bottle of Rum (liquor). The learned Judicial Magistrate refused to extend the benefit of section 360 Cr. P.C. or of the provisions of the Act of 1959 to the petitioner on the ground that it would not be proper to extend the benefit in regard to social crimes. 4. A learned Single Judge of the Court in Smt. Somali v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 267 of 1980. decided on September 8, 1980 ) held that unless any Act excludes the applicability of Section 360 Cr. P.C. or the Act of 1958, the mere fact that the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence is six months or so, is not sufficient to refuse the benefit of the provisions of the Act of 1958 and that it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether benefit of the above-mentioned provisions should be extended to the accused or not. 5. In the instant case, the accused petitioner has admitted the guilt when the plea was read over to him and, therefore, there is no reason as to why the case of the accused petitioner should not be dealt with under S. 360 Cr. P.C, or under the provisions of the Act of 1958. 5. In the instant case, the accused petitioner has admitted the guilt when the plea was read over to him and, therefore, there is no reason as to why the case of the accused petitioner should not be dealt with under S. 360 Cr. P.C, or under the provisions of the Act of 1958. It is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused-petitioner was not previously convicted for any offence. The revision petition is, of course, dismissed on merits but having regard to the fact that only one bottle (liquor) was found in possession of the accused-petitioner, I consider that it is a fit case which may be dealt under the Act of 1958. 6. I, therefore, direct that the accused-petitioner shall be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) and a surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so during a period of one year and in the mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. One month's time is allowed to the accused-petitioner for furnishing the personal bond and the surety to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barmer. In case, the accused, petitioner fails to do so, he will undergo the sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barmer and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra. Sd/- Shri S.K. Mal Lodha, J.Revision dismissed on merits. Accused released on furnishing bonds. *******