JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner Debu Ram was convicted of offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, in criminal case No. 88/81. Learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the aforesaid charges by judgment dated 19.5.1984 and sentenced him to undergo rigirous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go further simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, which was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, has upheld the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid charge and has also upheld the sentence passed against him and has consequently dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court by way of this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was 20 years of age when the alleged offence was committed. He was not a previous convict. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, did not assign any reason whatsoever for not releasing the accused on probation of good conduct even though it was the first offence. He merely observed that the accused was guilty of committing irregularities and was guilty of not maintaining the record properly and hence he deserves to be given substantive sentence. It is submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter at all and, therefore, this Court Should now enlarge the petitioner on probation of good conduct, keeping in view the fact that he is not a previous convict and was 20 years of age when the offence was committed and he has undergone a long and protracted trial for an offence which is said to have been committed in the Month of July, 1980. It is submitted that we are in the year 1994 and in facts and circumstances of the case the accused-petitioner should be released on probation of good conduct. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petition and submits that not properly maintaining the record pertaining to distribution of Essential Commodities is a serious offence and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was right in not granting benefit of probation to the accused. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the revision petition and submits that not properly maintaining the record pertaining to distribution of Essential Commodities is a serious offence and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was right in not granting benefit of probation to the accused. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. The offence is said to have been committed in the year 1980. The admitted position is that the accused-petitioner was a boy of 20 years of age. He has already undergone a protracted trial and a protracted appeal. It is not disputed that he is not a previous convict. In facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice will be met if the accused- petitioner is released on probation of good conduct. 6. I accordingly partly accept this revision petition, maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act and in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment order that he shall be released on probation of good conduct provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, for keeping the peace and to be of good behaviour for a period of two years, and to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within the aforesaid period. However, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 3000 (Rupees three thousand) as cost of prosecution before all the .three courts. The cost may be paid within a period of two months from today. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. *******