J. D. Jain ( 1 ) THE petitioner had been convicted of offencesunder Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act and Section 9 of the Opium Actand had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine ofrs. 100. 00 on first count and rigorous imprisonment for three months on thesecond. However both the sentences of imprisonment were made to runconcurrently. The conviction and sentence of the appellant has been maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition was admitted only on the question ofsentence and notice to the State (C. B. I, in the instant case) was issued. Thesubmission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner precisely is thatthe petitioner is a young man with no prime shady antecedents and he is nota previous convict) rather he is carrying on his business of auto repair workshop at Amritsar and earn his livlihood by dint of hard work. ( 3 ) TO have a peep into the facts under which the petitioner wasapprehended, the prosecution version may be briefly stated. On 6/11/1978 Shri R. N. Mishra, D. S. P. (C. B. I.) received some secretinformation and organised a raiding party comprising inter-alia two officialsof the Electricity Department. The raiding party went to Gali Kalyan Katrabaryan along with the informer who pointed towards two person: viz. thepetitioner and one Sant Singh who were standing by the side of a shop styled lovely Paints near the entrance of the street, at the signal of the informerboth the persons were apprehended and the petitioner was found in possessionof a tin box which yielded 2kgs of hashish and 200 grams of opium. Similarly on search of the canvass bag which was carried by Sant Singh 3 kgsof hashish and 300 grams of opium was recovered. The submission of thelearned counsel for the State, however, is that according to the informationreceived by the Deputy Superintedent of Police both the persons wereindulging is trafficking of contraband opium and hashish. However, thereis no iota of evidence to support the allegation except the bald statement ofshri Misra. ( 4 ) RELIANCE has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioneron a judgment of this Court in Tek Bahadur v. State (1982) 21 Delhi Lawtimes 233 in which 2 kgs. of opium was seized from the accused. Tek Bahadurwho hailed from the interior of Nepal. ( 4 ) RELIANCE has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioneron a judgment of this Court in Tek Bahadur v. State (1982) 21 Delhi Lawtimes 233 in which 2 kgs. of opium was seized from the accused. Tek Bahadurwho hailed from the interior of Nepal. After calling a report from theprobation Officer and having regard to the recommendation made by theprobation Officer Charanjit Talwar, J. allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner therein on probation of good conduct. The instantcase is, however, sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for thestate on the ground that there was no allegation therein that the petitionerwas wanting or going to sell the opium to any consumer generally andapparently he was a mere carrier and was a tool in the hands of some antisocial elements. Such a possibility has not been ruled out even in the instantcase because there is no specific evidence that the petitioner was in factindulging in anti-social activities by selling the contraband and the possibilityof his being a mere carrier cannot be ruled out. It may be noticed that hehails from the District Amritsar although he happens to reside in House No. 6429, Gali Kalyan, Katra Baryan, Delhi also. ( 5 ) THE Probation Officer has reported that the petitioner belongs toa Christian family and theeconomic condition of the family is quite satisfactory. The petitioner opened an auto repair workshop at Amritsar about 5years ago and he is earning about Rs. 1500. 00 per mensen therefrom. Thereis no adverse report regarding his antecedents, family background or hisinvolvement in any other anti-social activities. So it would appear that thepetitioner had fallen into the hands of some anti-social persons and indulgedin carrying contraband like opium and hashish. He is not a previous convict. This is further confirmed by a report produced by the counsel for the petitioner from the S. H. O. of Police Station concerned in District Amritsar whichhas been counter signed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner has also shown to me the registration andother documents issued by the Transport Authority, Amritsar showing that he is a registered owner of a taxi Ambassador make bearing registration No. PBA-9000. The original registration book has been issued by the Transportauthority, Amritsar. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner has also shown to me the registration andother documents issued by the Transport Authority, Amritsar showing that he is a registered owner of a taxi Ambassador make bearing registration No. PBA-9000. The original registration book has been issued by the Transportauthority, Amritsar. ( 6 ) KEEPING all these facts in view I am very much inclined to holdthat the petitioner has not yet reached a point of no return and he cannot besaid to be beyond redemption. His criminal proclivity seems to be a recentone. ( 7 ) SECTION 361 which is a new provision in the Code of Criminalprocedure of 1972 makes it mandatory for Court to record in its judgment the "special reasons" for not releasing offender on probation of good conductwhere the circumstances indicate that he could have been dealt with underthe Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The Court has, therefore, to examinethe age, character or antecedents of the offender and also the circumstancesin which the offence was committed and unless it comes to the conclusion thatit is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender there is no teason whythe benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act be not given to the accused. The learned counsel for the State is fair and candid enough to concede thatprovision of Section 4 of the said Act can be invoked in the instant case. Therefore, I am unable to conceive of any special reasons which may compelme to give the benefit of the said Act to the petitioner. ( 8 ) UNDER the circumstances, I direct that the petitioner be releasedon probation of good conduct on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 4. 000. 00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial courtviz. the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi that he shallappear and receive sentence within a period of two years if and when calledupon to do so by the Court concerned and in the meantime he shall be ofgood behaviour and keep peace. 4. 000. 00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial courtviz. the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi that he shallappear and receive sentence within a period of two years if and when calledupon to do so by the Court concerned and in the meantime he shall be ofgood behaviour and keep peace. ( 9 ) IT may, however, be further clarified that in view of the proviso tosection 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act the Additional Chief Metropolitanmagistrate shall ensure that the surety has a fixed placed of abode or regularoccupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or inwhich the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters intothe bond. ( 10 ) THIS revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.