JUDGMENT 1. - The Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated May 19, 1985 convicted the accused petitioner Sarjeet Singh for the offence under Sections 54 (a), 54 (c) and 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count, one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for the second count and six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the third count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal was filed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated November 18, 1985 maintained the conviction and sentences awarded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar. Hence this revision. 2. Mr. Mridul Jain, appearing for the petitioner does not question correctness of the conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. He however, submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused petitioner. He has invited attention to the decisions in Hazari v. State of Rajasthan 1978 RCC 224 , Jagta Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1981 RCC 1 , Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan 1985(4) Crime 63 , and Prem v. State 1985(1) Crime 839 , wherein benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC was given to the accused persons for the offence under Sections 54(c) and 54(d) of the Act. PC was given to the accused persons for the offence under Sections 54(c) and 54(d) of the Act. In Bishnudeo Shaw v. The State of West Bengal : AIR 1979 SC 964 , it was observed by their Lordship as under;-- "...if no previous offence is proved against the offender and if it appears to the Court having regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which, the offence was committed that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition." It was further held as under: "If the court refrains from dealing with an offender under Section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, or any other law for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders, where the Court could have done so, Section 361, which is a new provision in the 1973 Code, makes it mandatory for the Court to record in its judgment the 'special reasons' for not doing so." It was further observed as follows: "In the context of Section 360, the "special reasons" contemplated by Section 361 must be such as to compel the Court to hold that it is to rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed." 3. After considering the aforementioned principles laid by by Supreme Court in Bishnudeo's case (supra) and further shown by the Public Prosecutor on record that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and having regard to the age, and the antecedents of the accused petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner should have been given benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC or the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act. It would, therefore, be justified and proper if the petitioner is released on probation, While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offences under Sections 54(a), 54(c) and 54(d) of the Act, it is ordered that he shall be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so during the period of one year and in the mean-time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so during the period of one year and in the mean-time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. On furnishing the bond and the surety in terms of this order before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sri Ganganagar he shall be relased. 4. The revision petition is accordingly decided as indicated above.Revision partly allowed. *******