JUDGMENT 1. - A common question of law has been raised in the above mentioned three criminal revisions, therefore, they are decided by single order. 2. All the three petitioners were convicted under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for brevity, 'Excise Act') and have been sentenced to different period of imprisonment & fine by the trial Court. Petitioner in Petition No 77/90 was sentenced by the appellate Court to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo one month's further sentence, Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 87/90, was sentenced by the appellate Court for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and, in Petition No. 91/90, the petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of which, he was sentenced to further simple imprisonment for 15 days. 3. None of the learned counsel for the petitioners presses their petitions on merits, but it is contended that all the petitioners deserve to be given benefit of the provisions of Section 360, Cr.P.C. or Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1958'), which has been wrongly denied to them. It is also pointed out that no reasons were recorded by the courts below regarding refusal to give above benefit to the petitioners and whatever reasons have been given, are no reasons in eye of law. 4. It is contended by Miss Sumitra Goyal. learned Public Prosecutor, that benefit of the provisions of Act, 1958/Section 160, Cr.P.C. could not be given to them, as minimum sentence of six months is provided in Section 54 of the Excise Act, 1950. It is, therefore, contended that the courts below have rightly denied this benefit to the petitioners. 5. There is no doubt that Section 54 of the Excise Act does provides that a person, who is found guilty under the provisions of Section mentioned above, shall be punished with a minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months and fine of two hundred rupees. The maximum sentence provided is three years and fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees. The maximum sentence provided is three years and fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees. Reliance was placed by the learned Public Prosecutor on State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.R. Rangadamapa ( AIR 1982 SC 1492 ) , wherein while considering the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, it was observed by the Apex Court that where provision for minimum sentence is provided, the Court is not entitled to reduce the same beyond the minimum sentence provided in Section itself. In my opinion, this authority is not applicable to the present contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. What is contended is whether the petitioners were entitled to benefit of the provisions of Act, 1950/Section 360, Cr.P.C. and not that they should have been given less sentence than the minimum provided in Section 54 of the Excise Act. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is a mile-stone in the progress of liberal trend of reform in the field of criminology. It is result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Hence, this Act came to be enacted, keeping in view the purpose mentioned above. Section 4 of the Act, 1958 clearly provides that when any person is found guilty to have committed an offence, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of the opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and character of the offender, that it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he may be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years as the court may direct, and in the mean-time, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Sub-section (2) provides that before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the Probation Officer concerned in relation to the case. Sub-section (2) provides that before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the Probation Officer concerned in relation to the case. Thus, it is evident from the provisions referred to above, that these provisions are mandatory and it was duty of the lower courts to have collected material about the character, antecedents, family back-ground of the offenders and, if the Court, after considering the material, came to the conclusion that the offender is of such a character that he cannot reform or rehabilitate only then after recording the "special reasons", it could refuse to deal with the case under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1958. Nothing like this was done in either of the three cases and the concerning courts refused to give benefit of the provisions of Sections 4 without material on record, which should have been collected. 6. Reference may be made to State v. Rathinavelu (1973 Cr. L.J. 354) , in which, the Apex Court considered similar provisions of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, while considering the question of giving benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The petitioner, in the above-mentioned case, was convicted for an offence under Section 3 of the above-mentioned Act, but was released under the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1958 on entering into a bond for Rs. 300/- with two sureties to be of good behaviour for a period of one year by the trial Court. The State preferred revision petition and contended that since the sentence for a minimum period of one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- was provided under Section 3 of the above-mentioned Act, the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 could not have been given to the accused-person. However, it was held that if minimum sentence is provided, benevolent of the Act, 1958 could be applied if the conditions are satisfied. In Revision Petitions No. 77/90 and 91/90, benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 was refused, as minimum sentence was provided in Section 54 of the Excise Act. However, it was held that if minimum sentence is provided, benevolent of the Act, 1958 could be applied if the conditions are satisfied. In Revision Petitions No. 77/90 and 91/90, benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 1958 was refused, as minimum sentence was provided in Section 54 of the Excise Act. In Revision Petition No 87/90, while refusing to allow benefit of the provisions of section 4 of the Act of 1958, it was observed by the Appellate Court that, even though, the petitioner is a man having family, but, since he was manufacturing illicit liquor and was possessing illicit liquor in large quantity, he does not deserve to be given benefit of the provisions mentioned above. In my considered opinion, the reasons mentioned above are not sufficient to disentitle the petitioner from consideration for giving benefit of the provisions mentioned above. The trial in Revision Petition No. 77/90 was initiated on the incident that took place on 17.5.87 and, thus, more than four years have passed, since the petitioner has been facing the criminal proceedings in various courts. In Revision Petition No. 87/90, the trial was initiated on the incident that took place on 14.11.87 and the petitioner has faced criminal proceedings in various courts for about 3 years and is 60 years old, as given out by the learned counsel. In Revision Petition No. 91/90, the trial was initiated on the incident, which took place on 17.10.82 and the petitioner has faced criminal proceedings for about 8 years. All the petitioners have remained in jail for quite some time and they have no previous conviction to their discredit, nor any criminal proceedings are pending against them, as given out by the learned counsel for each of the petitioners, and it will serve no useful purpose, after they have faced the protracted criminal litigation in various courts to put them behind bars for any further period. Similar view was taken by this Court in Nanu v. State of Raj. (1989 Cr. L.J. 279) , Moti Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan (1986 RLR 369) & Magh Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1981 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 569. 7. Similar view was taken by this Court in Nanu v. State of Raj. (1989 Cr. L.J. 279) , Moti Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan (1986 RLR 369) & Magh Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1981 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 569. 7. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case & nature of the offence, I am of the opinion that it is expedient to release all the petitioners on probation of good conduct and they may be released on each of their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand & five hundred only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear & receive the sentence when called upon during period of one year and, in the mean-time, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 8. The petitions are allowed, as mentioned above.Revision Petitions Allowed. *******