JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road on June 26, 1976 convicted the accused-petitioner under clause (b) of sub section (1) of S. 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act (for short `the Act hereinafter) and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner. Hence this revision, 2. I have heard Mr. S.R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat, Public Prosecutor for the State and have also gone through the record of the case. 3. Madansingh (PW. 3) was posted as Excise Inspector, Abu Road on May 9,1973. On the day, he alongwith Jamadar Girdhari Singh (PW. 4) and others had gone to Patrolling duties to Mount Abu. There, an information was received by him that the accused had taken a shop on rent from Delwada Temple Board and was dealing in illicit liquor. He recorded his reasons as required under the law in Ex.P. 4. He went there and took search of the room, the key of which was with the accused-petitioner. It was noticed that in a plastic tin, there was about 5 litres of illicit liquor and two bottles of country liquor (Gulab). Samples were taken and they were sent to the chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner vide his report (Ex. p. 6) found that the sample of liquor contained 64.76 per cent under proof ethyl Alcohol and 54.08 percent under proof ethyl Alcohol. The accused was prosecuted. The plea of the accused was of a bare denial. He denied the recovery of the liquor from his possession. The accused examined one witness in defence. The learned Munsif convicted and sentenced the accused as aforsesaid. The accused lodged an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge affirming the conviction and sentence rejected the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has not pressed arguments on the merits of the case and rightly so, because it being a revision petition, the finding of fact of the courts below that the accused was found in exclusive possessions of the liquor recovered from him does not call for any interference. The finding cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. 5. The finding cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. 5. The only submission of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is that the offence took place in the year 1973 and looking to the quantity of the liquor recovered from the accused-petitioner, a lenient view may be taken in the case. It was also contended that in some cases, probation has also been extended to the accused under the Excise Act. There is a clear provision contained in S. 104 (A) that nothing in the Bombay Probation Offenders of Act, 1938 (Bom. XIX of 1938) or in any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of the State or in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (XX of 1958) where the Act is brought into force in any part of the State or in section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), shall apply to any person convicted of any offence under this Act. In my opinion, the benefit of neither S. 360 Cr. P. C. nor of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to the accused-petitioner. The illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner in the month of May, 1973. The accused was prosecuted in the month of January, 1974. The trial of the case ended in the year 1976. Thereafter, the appeal was filled, which was disposed of by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sirohi in the year 1977. Thus, the accused is undergoing the cordial of trial, appeal of revision for the last about 8 years. The quantity of liquor recovered from the possession of the accused is also not much. The accused has also undergone about 9 days imprisonment. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice will be met if the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the sentence already under gone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. 6. In the result, the revision petition partly succeeds. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is dismissed. The accused is sentenced under S. 66(1) (b) of the Act to under go the sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 6. In the result, the revision petition partly succeeds. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is dismissed. The accused is sentenced under S. 66(1) (b) of the Act to under go the sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he will further suffer one months imprisonment, One month's time is granted to the accused-petitioner to deposit the payment of fine in the trial Court. If the accused fails to deposit the amount of fine, the trial court shall take steps to get the accused apprehended so that he may undergo the sentence in lieu of fine.Revision partly allowed. *******