Judgment : This is an appeal preferred by the State against the sentence passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Coonoor in Calendar Case No. 843 of 1976 convicting the respondent-accused for an offence under section 4 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and releasing him after due admonition under section 3 of the Probation of Offender Act and also directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 200 as costs for the proceedings under section 5 (1) (b) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 2. This appeal is only against the sentence on the ground of inadequacy as the offence under which the petitioner was convicted carries a minimum sentence of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000. It is not necessary for me to give the details of the facts of the case as it has been well set out in the judgment of the trial Court. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted that offences of this nature should not be viewed in a lenient way and the release under the Probation of Offenders Act defeats the purpose of the social objective intended by the Prohibition Act, and the offence committed in the present case carries a minimum sentence of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000. The trial Magistrate has erred in not giving adequate and special reasons for not imposing the minimum sentence required under the, law. 4. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor. The benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are not meant to be used in offences like the present one. 5. The trial Magistrate without giving adequate and special reasons invoked the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to circumvent the minimum sentence prescribed for an offence under section 4 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. However, as this offence is stated to have taken place in 1976, about five years before. I do not think I will be justified now to go into the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons given by the trial Magistrate for passing an order as he did. I do not feel at this stage my interference is warranted to enhance the sentence imposed on the respondent accused. I do not think I will be justified now to go into the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons given by the trial Magistrate for passing an order as he did. I do not feel at this stage my interference is warranted to enhance the sentence imposed on the respondent accused. This appeal has been filed by the State more to bring to the notice of the trial Court that the Probation of Offenders Act should not be invoked where a minimum sentence is prescribed for the offences of this nature and where a the law insists that such minimum sentence should be awarded unless there are adequate and special reasons. I am not inclined to allow the present appeal preferred by the State. The appeal to enhance the sentence is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.