ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. This appeal pursuant to the special leave granted is directed against the judgment dated March 12, 1979 of the High Court of M.P. Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1974. The appellant was tried for an offence punishable under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The trial court acquitted him. Against the order of acquittal the Union of India filed an appeal and the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 85 of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. In this appeal Mr. Harjinder Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the gold seized is not primary gold but only ornaments, and therefore, the provisions of the Gold Control Act are not attracted. The High Court has considered this aspect in detail with reference to the material on record and held that the appellant was in possession of primary gold. We see no reason to disagree with that finding. 3. However, it is not a fit case where the appellant should be sent back to the jail. The Gold Control Act itself is repealed and the quantity of gold involved is not much. Therefore, we think that this is a fit case where the appellant should be released on probation of good conduct. It is true that on May 18, 1969, the date on which the offence took place, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not in force and, therefore, the question is whether he can be released under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that in a case of this nature where the minimum sentence of imprisonment prescribed is six months the accused cannot be released on probation of good conduct. We do not see any provisions in the Gold Control Act, 1968 as it was on the date of offence excluding the operation of Section 4. The learned counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on Section 111 of the Act but we do not find anything in that provision which either expressly or impliedly excludes the operation of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We release the accused on probation of good conduct on his entering a personal bond for Rs. The learned counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on Section 111 of the Act but we do not find anything in that provision which either expressly or impliedly excludes the operation of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We release the accused on probation of good conduct on his entering a personal bond for Rs. 2000 to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We are told by the learned counsel for the appellant that a writ petition has been filed regarding the disposal of the property and the same is pending. This order of ours, however, shall not come in the way of disposing of the writ petition. 4. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.