JUDGMENT 1. -This is a application in revision filed by Shri Chiranji Lal, Petitioner, against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge. Churu, dated 12. 9.78 by which the judgment of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (Churu) convicting the Petitioner under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and sentencing him to six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month was upheld. 2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that on 11-1-1977 Shri Noor Mohammed (P.W. 2) A. S. I., In charge, Police Station Rajgarh (Churu) received a credible information at 6 p. m. that the petitioner had been in possession of illicit liquor and had been selling it to others. Upon receiving aforesaid information, Shri Noor Mohammed, A.S.I. rushed to the locality in which petitioner resided and found that the petitioner was giving one bottle of illicit liquor to a person. That person ran away from there at the sight of the A. S. I., and the petitioner put the bottle of illicit wine under his tehmat which he was wearing at that time. Noor Mohammed A. S. I. searched the person of the petitioner and took out the bottle of illicit liquor, which the petitioner was hiding in his tehmat. The liquor in the bottle upon smelling was found to be Deshi-illicit wine. As the district Churu was declared to be a dry area, the petitioner could not legally keep illicit wine in his possession, Noor Mohammed took a sample of that illicit wine in the bottle and scaled it properly at the spot. The said sample was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, in a sealed condition for analysis. On chemical examination, the Director of the Laboratory found that the liquid sample sent to him containing in a bottle was found to be of liquor having 76.01 under proof Ethyl Alchol. The report of the Director is Ex. p-4 on the record. Noor Mohammed A.S.I. got a criminal case registered against the petitioner in police station Rajgarh (Churu). After usual investigation into the matter a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner under section 4(2) of the Prohibition Act in the Court of Mum if & Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh Churu). The report of the Director is Ex. p-4 on the record. Noor Mohammed A.S.I. got a criminal case registered against the petitioner in police station Rajgarh (Churu). After usual investigation into the matter a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner under section 4(2) of the Prohibition Act in the Court of Mum if & Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh Churu). The Learned Judicial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offence and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above. The petitioner, aggrieved by his conviction and sentence. Preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Churu but his appeal was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has moved this Court in revision to challenge his conviction and sentence. 3. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. S. K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. At the out set I may observe that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not succeed in challenging the conviction of the petitioner under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, because prosecution has adduced reliable evidence of Noor Mohammed (P.W. 2) and Asgar Khan (P.W. 3) to prove its case against the petitioner. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it is fully established beyond any doubt that a bottle containing illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of the petitioner upon search of his person. These two witnesses definitely stated in their deposition that petitioner had hidden a bottle containing illicit liquor in his tehmat and that he was giving this bottle to another person who ran away from there at the arrival of the A S.l. It is no doubt true that Laxmi Narain (P.W. 1) turn about hostile to the prosecution case in the trial court and stated in his deposition that the petitioner was not the person who was selling illicit liquor to another person, but his evidence is of no worth because it appears that he has been won over by the petitioner to give evidence in his favour. It is therefore proved by the prosecution from the report of the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, that upon chemical examination, the liquid sample was found to be of illicit liquor. It is therefore proved by the prosecution from the report of the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, that upon chemical examination, the liquid sample was found to be of illicit liquor. Consequently, I have no hesitation that both the Courts below rightly came to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969. 5. As regards sentences, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below should have extended the benefit of probation to the petitioner under section 360, Cr. P. C. because the petitioner was not a previous convict for similar offence or of any other offence and that one bottle of illicit deshi liquor only was found in his possession and that he has already under gone imprisonment for about 15 days. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the Rajasthan Prohibition Act-is a special act which provides a minimum sentence in cases of conviction under section 4(2) thereof, and therefore, section 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code are inapplicable to such Cases. 6. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. In my opinion, the petitioner deserves to be tried leniently in the matters of sentence. The petitioner has no previous conviction to his discredit for similar offence or any other offence and one bottle only containing illicit liquor was found in his possession. He has been facing criminal prosecution since 16th Jan. 1977 and has already been in jail for about a fortnight. It will be too harsh, if he is again sent to jail in this case for serving out the remaining part of the sentence. The contention of the Public Prosecutor that section 360 and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code are in conflict to proviso to (2) section 4 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act which provides minimum sentence for offence like the present one is untenable for the simple reason that the mere fact that special act like Rajasthan Prohibition Act provides or fixes a minimum sentence for offence under subsection (2) of section 4 there of does not render the provisions containing in sections 360 and 361 Cr. P. C. in-applicable. Hence, 1 am of the view that there is no bar to the applicability of the sections 360 and 361 Cr. P. C. in-applicable. Hence, 1 am of the view that there is no bar to the applicability of the sections 360 and 361 Cr. P. C. to grant the benefit of probation to the petitioner in this case. A reference in support of this may be made to an authority of the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Jogendra Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1981 (NOC-21) corresponding to 1980 Cri. L. J. page 1218. 7. The result is that I partly accept the revision petition and while maintaining conviction of the petitioner under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on probation on entering into a bond in the amount of two thousand Rupees together with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during the period of one year and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The personal bond as well as surety bond will be furnished by petitioner in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (Churu) within a month from the date of this order. Record of the case be sent to the lower Courts immediately.Revision partly allowed. *******