JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the P. P. 2. This is a revision petition against the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota dated 23 6-83 where by he has confirmed the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota The petitioner was challenged under the Opium Act and he was found guilty u/s 4/9 of the said Act. He was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to three months and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one month's imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though there are so many lacunas and infirm ties in this case, but looking to the condition of the petitioner he has argued on the point of sentence only. He does not press the revision petitioner on other points mentioned in it except that of the sentence awarded to took petitioner. 4. It has been argued that this is the first offence of the petitioner and he is a poor man and has to maintain a big family. He has argued that the trial Court has also mentioned in its judgment that the petitioner is a poor man and earns he livelihood by doing labour work and he has to maintain his family. It has also be mentioned in that judgment that the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner seen to be good. Learned counsel has argued that even then the trial court or the appellate court did not grant any benefit of S. 360 Cr.P.C or under the Probatica of Offenders Act, and as such it is a fit case in which benefit of S. 360, Cr.P.C. under the Probation of Offenders Act be given to the petitioner. 5. I have considered this argument and also heard the learned P. P. 6. I agree that it is a fit case in which benefit of S. 360, Cr.P C. be given to the petitioner. The petitioner has been awarded a sentence of three months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner States that the petitioner has already undergone one month's imprisonment. I agree that it is a fit case in which benefit of S. 360, Cr.P C. be given to the petitioner. The petitioner has been awarded a sentence of three months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner States that the petitioner has already undergone one month's imprisonment. I am, therefore, of the opinion that looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice and it is a fit case in which the petitioner be released on probation. 7. The revision petition is, therefore, partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner is maintained and the sentence already undergone is sufficient. But to ensure that in future he should not repeat this offence, 1 direct that the petitioner should be released on probation u/s 360, Cr.P C. provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs 2,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. T. Kota City Kota for keeping good behaviour for one year. If he violates this condition during one year, he will surrender himself before the trial court to undergo the remaining sentence awarded to him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No 1, Kota in criminal appeal No. 168/80.Revision party allowed. *******