JUDGMENT : B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - This revision was against the conviction of the petitioner u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. 1915, for having possessed 25 litres of illicit liqor, for which offence sentence of R. I. for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-. which is the minimum prescribed by law, was awarded, was once heard on 10-9-1993. As would appear from the order passed on that day, the only question canvassed related to sentence, and the point urged was that the petitioner should be released on probation. This was, however, loft to be decided after perusal of the report of the Probation Officer, which had not been called for, though so mandated by Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1358, despite which probation was refused. As this could not have done so, such a report was called for. 2. The report has since been received and. it states that the present is the first offence of the petitioner who is aged 45 and who comes from a lower strata of the society earning his livelihood either by cultivation or by getting himself engaged as a casual labourer. The cause of the offence had been described as 'motivation' due to bad association. The District Probation Officer, Dhenkanal, therefore, recom rrends that a chance may be given to the petitioner to correct his behaviour. 3. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act requires character of the offender to be borne in mind along with the nature of the offence. It is because of this requirement that Shri Misra has contended that denial of the probationary benefit by the trial Court, which view was affirmed by the appellate Court, merely because that liquor business had been rampant in the area, is not sufficient to deny the benefit. 4. Before any view on the aforesaid question is taken, it would be apposite to refer to Nilambar Sahu v. State of Orissa 1990 (I) OLR 424, which was a Case of conviction for storing and selling of illicit liquor in which benefit of probation had been denied by the trial Court by observing that "this sort of offence is anti-social in character and is rampant in the society causing serious breach of peace and tranquillity." This Court had upheld that view. 5. 5. Shri Misra, however, urges that merely because the offence is anti-social or that it is rampant may not be taken to be the only circumstance to decide whether the benefit of probation should be made available inasmuch as Section 4 of the Act requires consideration not only of the "nature of that offence'* but the "character of the offender" also. IT Is urged by the learned counsel by referring lo the report of the Probation Officer that he, despite being aware of the fact that the petitioner had been convicted of unlawful possession of country liquor, has recommended enlargement on probation because of the character of the offender and because the present was the first offence and the crime had been committed because of bad association. Learned counsel contends that if the petitioner would be confined in a jail, he would come in contact with hardened criminals and the same would really be injurious not only for him but for the society ; and so, for the good of the society itself, apart from the need to keep in view the reformative aspect of punishment as well in mind, it is a fit case where the benefit of probation should be given. 6. I have duly considered these submissions. I am of the view that though nature of the offence has definitely to be borne in mind while deciding the question of release on probation, that by itself cannot clinch the matter, for the simple reason that if that would have been the legisative intent, the Act at hand would have been amendedas has been Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(to name one) by insertaing Section 20-AA in it in 1976 to rule out applicability of the Probation Act unless the concerned person be under 1 3 years of age. This shows that nature of offence alone is not a decisive factor. Character of offender has aiso to be borne in mind, it would be also useful to refer to Section 360 of tha Criminal Procedure Code of 1973, though this Section is not in terms applicable in this State, to apprise us as to what is the latest thinking of law-makers on this aspect of public importance, This provision requires consideration' of age. character and antecedents of the offender in this context, along with the circumstances in which the offence was committed. This is not all. character and antecedents of the offender in this context, along with the circumstances in which the offence was committed. This is not all. Section 361 requires recording of reasons for not having dealt with an accused u/s 360 where he could have been. So, use of the probationary benefit in appropriate cases is the nation's desire. It is known that release on probation has intimate relationship with reformative fact of punishment. 7. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the report of the Probation Officer and the submissions advanced, I agree with Shri Misra that present is a fit case for giving the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner, and so order for his release on probation on his furnishing a bond with one surety to appear and receive the sentence when called upon within a period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 8. The revision is disposed of accordingly.