JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was tried for an offence under section 4(l)(e) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in criminal case no. 358/78. The learned Magistrate found that on 8-4-78, the petitioner was in possession of implements for manufacturing illicit liquor as also 100 litrs. of wash. Upon such finding, the petitioner was convicted for the aforesaid charge & was sentenced to R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months. The petitioner went in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra camp Barmer. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the finding of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has come to this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the legality and propriety of the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 4(l)(e) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act but he submits that the Rajasthan Prohibition Act has been repealed. The incident pertained to 8-4 78 and the petitioner has undergone the agony of a protracted trial, appeal and revision for more than 13 years. The petitioner was arrested on 18-4-78 and remained behind bars till 19-4-78. Thereafter he was taken in the custody on 17-10-84 and remained in custody till 23-10-84. He submits that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail after such a long period and, therefore, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner may be reduced to that already undergone by him or in the alternative the petitioner ought to be released on probation of good conduct. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Pannalal v. State of Rajasthan (1984 Cr. LR (Raj.) 613) , where 220 bottles of illicit liquor had been recovered from the possession of the accused and accused was eventually released on probation. 3. The learned P.P. opposes the revision petition and he submits in this case, though the Rajasthan Prohibition Act has been repealed, yet the petitioner was found in possession of implements for manufacturing illicit liquor and was also found in possession of 100 Itrs. of wash, therefore he does not deserve to be released on probation nor his sentence deserves to be reduced. 4. of wash, therefore he does not deserve to be released on probation nor his sentence deserves to be reduced. 4. I have considered the rival contentions & have perused the record of the learned courts below. There is a concurrent finding of the learned courts below that the petitioner was found in possession of implements for manufacturing illicit liquor and was also found in possession of 100 Its. of wash. I have gone through the evidence available on the record and I find that the finding of the court below is supported by evidence on record and, therefore, conviction of the petitioner cannot be said to be improper or illegal and is maintained. 5. This takes me to the consideration of the question of sentence. In Panna Lai's case (supra), the offence was committed in 1974. The petitioner was found in possession of 220 bottles of illicit liquor. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced. When his revision was heard almost ten years had elapsed since the commission of the offence and, therefore, this High Court took a lenient view and enlarged the petitioner on probation of good conduct. 6. In the present case, as already pointed out above, the petitioner has already undergone the agony of a protracted trial, appeal and revision for almost 13 years. He has also remained in jail for some time. No useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail again. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner should be enlarged on probation of good conduct. 7. No other point was urged before me. 8. In view of what I have stated above, this revision petition is partly accepted; the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section 4(l)(e) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act is maintained but in lieu of immediately sentencing him, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 2000/- and a surety bond in a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, binding the petitioner to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years from today and to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within the aforesaid period. The bonds shall be furnished within a period of two months from today. The petitioner shall pay costs of prosecution in a sum of Rs. The bonds shall be furnished within a period of two months from today. The petitioner shall pay costs of prosecution in a sum of Rs. 200/- in the learned trial court within the aforesaid period of two months. 9. The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of.Revision partly allowed. *******