G.K. SHARMA, J.—With the consent of both the learned counsel the revision petition is disposed of at this stage. 2. The petitioner was challaned u/s, 54/16 Rajasthan Excise Act This incident has taken place on 28-8-83 and the petitioner was found working on a workable still and taking out liquor, The Excise Inspector arrested the accused for extracting the liquor alongwith the extracted liquor. 3. After concluding the trial the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty u/s. 54/16 Excise Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo one months imprisonment Aggrieved by this Order an appeal was preferred and the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Neem ka Thana vide the Order dated 29-6-89 dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue on the merit of the case but it was stated that this incident has taken place in the year 1983 and at that time the accused-petitioner was about 50 years of age. This is first offence and after this incident there is no allegation that he was involved in similar matter, after the decision. It was also argued that since 29-6-1989 the petitioner is in jail and prayed that looking to the circumstances of the case the petitioner be ordered to be released on probation u/s. 360 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in such cases where workable still was found no lenient view be taken. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Matusingh vs. State (1).; This case is parallel to the present case where the petitioner was found working on a workable still and extracting liquor. He has been in jail for 10 days and while disposing the revision petition the conviction was maintained but benefit of releasing him on probation u/s. 360 Cr.P.C. was granted In this case also the petitioner remained in jail and there is no allegation that he was involved in such cases after the decision of the appeal. The incident relates to the year 1983 and it would be unjust to send him to jail to undergo the sentence awarded to him after the lapse of 6 years specially in the circumstances when there is no adverse report about his conduct. 7. The incident relates to the year 1983 and it would be unjust to send him to jail to undergo the sentence awarded to him after the lapse of 6 years specially in the circumstances when there is no adverse report about his conduct. 7. Under these circumstances the petitioner is given benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. 8. As a result, the revision petition is partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner u/s. 54/16 Excise Act is maintained but instead of sending him to jail he is ordered to be released on furnishing one surety, of Rs. 2000/- and a personal bond of the same amount for keeping good behaviour for a period of two years and also not to commit such offence in this period. In case the petiti-oner repeats this offence during the period of two years he be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence awarded to him by the lower Court