Judgment G. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Addi. Sessions Judge (1), Alwar dated 8-6-79 by which he maintained the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, but reduced the. sentence from 8 months to 6 months RI, and the fine from Rs. 300/- to 150/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one. months R. J. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was prosecuted on the complaint of the Excise Inspector in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. He was checked by the Excise Inspector on 16-5-74 and was found working on running still for taking out illicit liquor. The petitioner and one Chuttan were prosecuted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, who found each of them guilty for the offence charged with and sentenced them to 8 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months R. I. ( 3 ) IN appeal accused Chuttan was acquitted by the learned Add!. Sessions Judge (1), Alwar, but the conviction of the petitioner was maintained and his sentence was reduced as mentioned above. This revision petition was admitted by this Court on 28-6-79 only on the question 9f the sentence. As such, this revision petitioner is not being heard on merit, but on the question of the sentence only. Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this incident took place on 16-5- 74 and on that date the petitioner was 18 years of age. It was incumbent on the lower Court to grant benefit of Section 360, Cr. P. C. as held in Hazari v. State1 by this Court. ( 4 ) MR. Mathur argued that the petitioner was caught while working on a running still, and in such cases no lenient view should be taken. As he was found working on a running still, the learned Magistrate has not erred in not granting benefit of Section 360, Cr. P. C. I have considered both the rival contentions. It is not disputed that the accused was 18 years of age on 16-5-74. Apart from this, it is clear from the statement recorded u/s 313, Cr. P. C. that the petitioner has given his age as 22 years. P. C. I have considered both the rival contentions. It is not disputed that the accused was 18 years of age on 16-5-74. Apart from this, it is clear from the statement recorded u/s 313, Cr. P. C. that the petitioner has given his age as 22 years. The statement was recorded in 1978 and as such his age in 1974 comes to about 18 years. Looking to the age of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have been granted the benefit of Section 360, Cr. P. c. if this benefit was not granted, it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to give adequate reasons as provided in Section 361, Cr. P. C. In the present case, no reasons have been recorded by the trial magistrate or the Addi. Sessions Judge. There is nothing on record to show that the accused is a previous convict. The Legislature has made provision in Sections 360 and 361, Cr. P. C. and the Magistrate bas been empowered to release such accused on probation of good conduct. So, it was incumbent on the Magistrate to grant benefit u/s 360, Cr. P. C. and if he had any special reason for not granting this benefit he should have recorded such reasons, as held in Hazaris case (supra ). ( 5 ) IT has been argued by Mr. Sharma that the petitioner after conviction remained in custody for about 20 days. Therefore, instead of sending the petitioner to Jail, I feel that he should be released on probation under Section 360, Cr. P. C. This view is also taken looking to the fact that the accused was 18 years of age on the date of alleged offence. ( 6 ) THE revision petition is, therefore, partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner u/s 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act is maintained, but it is ordered that he shall be released on probation if he executed a personal bond of Rs. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Add!. Sessions Judge. (1), Alwar to maintain peace and be of good behavior for a period of two years, and also undertakes to appear before the Addi. Sessions Judge (I), Alwar to undergo the sentence awarded to him, provided he fails to execute personal and surety bonds within two months from today. Revision petition partly accepted.