JUDGMENT 1. - This is a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr. PC against the Judgment of Sessions Judge Balotra in Criminal Appeal No. 85/83 decided on 31-10-84 whereby he has upheld the order dated 16th of September 1983 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Criminal Case No. 45/83 convicting the petitioner under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 and sentencing him to 7 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to under go two months simple imprisonment. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor. So far as the petitioner's conviction under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act 1969 is concerned, I find that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference in Revision. The conviction is based on cogent evidence, the finding is not at all preverse and it also does not suffer from any infirmity. However, it appears from the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 16th of September 1983 and the order dated 31st October 1984 passed in Appeal by Sessions Judge, Balotra that the petitioner's request for giving him the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act it has not received proper consideration. It has been submitted by Shri Kumbhat that it was the first offence of the petitioner who was of 35 years of age at the time of the trial, he is a Khatik that is a member of Scheduled Caste and was not engaged in the manufacture or any business of liquor and he was engaged in the leather trade.These facts have not been controverted by the P.P. even before this court. Sh. Kumbhat pointed out that a reference to the previous conduct of the petitioner as has been made in the trial Court's order is erroneous and he has submitted that prior to this there was nothing wrong with his conduct. Sh. Singhvi, the learned P.P. has submitted that the previous conduct of the petitioner has been considered by the learned trial Court only in the context that the defence of enmity with the Police persons as was taken by the petitioner in the trial had not been reported by the petitioner to the appointing Authorities although, the petitioner has claimed himself to be the 'Mukhiya' of the Mohalla. In my opinion, the mere omission on the part of the petitioner to report the matter to the appointing authorities and even if such defence has not found favour with the trial Judge, the petitioner could not be deprived of the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. In my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the petitioner should be given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, I partly allow this revision petition. The petitioner is granted the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, and it is ordered that the petitioner shall not be called upon to serve out the sentence under the order dated 16th of September, 1983, and shall be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on executing a bond for a sum of Rupees 5,000/- to maintain good conduct for a period of one year. The petitioner may submit such personal bond to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra. within a period of four months from today. However, the petitioner shall also deposit a sum of Rs. 250/- against the cost of litigation in the trial court, within the aforesaid period of four months, in all other aspects the impugned orders are upheld. This revision petition is partly allowed, as indicated above.Revision partly allowed. *******