Order.- Mr. Government Pleader who appears in this revision petition taking notice of the bail application presented by the petitioner and Mr. Subba Rao appearing for the petitioner, have been both heard by me on the merits of the revision petition, treating this case as being on the list to-day for final hearing. The argument advanced by Mr. Subba Rao is that the petitioner was not proved to have committed as offence under section 59(b)of the Mysore Prohibition Act since the only evidence which has been produced against him is the evidence of the Police Constable who apprehended him. There is, of course, the testimony of the doctor who gave evidence that there was a smell of toddy which was emanating from the accused whereas, as Mr. Subba Rao has pointed out, the Police Constable gave evidence that the smell was of arrack. It does not appear to me that merely because the evidence against the petitioner is the evidence of only the Police Constable I should discard that testimony, since there is no universal or inflexible rule that the evidence of a Police witness is always liable to be discarded in the absence of corroboration. In regard to the discrepancy between the evidence of the Police Constable and the doctor as to the exact nature of the odour that the petitioner was exuding, it would be enough to observe that when a man imbibes alcoholic spirits the odour which he emanates depends not only upon the spirit which he has imbibed but also upon the smell which his own body exudes, and the smell which ultimately emanates from the person who is intoxicated cannot easily be identified by any one as either being attributable to one kind of liquor or to another. It is therefore not unnatural that while the Police Constable thought that the smell was that of arrack, the doctor thought that the smell was of toddy. Whether it is toddy or arrack, what is clear is that the accused was found to have consumed liquor and so he clearly committed an offence. I therefore refuse to disturb the conviction based upon the evidence of the witnesses which both the Courts believed. But Mr. Subba Rao urged the plea that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was much too excessive, and in the circumstances extremely harsh. I therefore refuse to disturb the conviction based upon the evidence of the witnesses which both the Courts believed. But Mr. Subba Rao urged the plea that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was much too excessive, and in the circumstances extremely harsh. The Magistrate imposed a sentence of three months’ simple Imprisonment and in addition a sentence of fine of Rs.500. The Sessions Judge himself was disposed to take the view that the sentence was harsh. What he did therefore was to set aside the sentence of fine and restrict the sentence to only one of imprisonment. It seems to me that" Mr. Subba Rao is right in urging that the Sessions Judge seems to have been under the impression that there was something in the proviso appearing underneath clause (l) of section 59 of the Mysore Prohibition Act which makes a sentence of imprisonment compulsory. This is a case in which there is no proof that the accused had committed any previous offence and so the offence with which he was charged was a first offence, and for a first offence, as provided by clause (l) of section 59, the sentence may be either a sentence of imprisonment which may extend to six months or may be a sentence of fine without any sentence of imprisonment. The proviso which directs that no sentence of imprisonment awarded for a first offence under section 59 shall be less than three months in duration is, it is clear, applicable only to those cases in which a sentence of imprisonment is awarded and it is not considered by the Court that the sentence of fine is adequate. It is obvious from the provisions of clause (l) of section 59 that for a first offence under that section, a sentence of imprisonment is not always obligatory and that each case must depend upon its own facts in regard to the question whether a sentence of imprisonment must needs be awarded or whether a sentence of fine is enough. In the circumstances of this case in which the accused is a young man of 22 years and had committed no previous offence and was found only to have consumed an intoxicant, it does not appear to me, particularly when the Sessions Judge himself thought that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the Magistrate was excessive, that any sentence of imprisonment is called for. I therefore set aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Court of Session and in substitution of it I impose a sentence of fine amounting to Rs.500 (Rs. Five hundred) which shall be paid in two equal instalments; the first instalment shall be paid on or before the first day of February, 1965 and the second instalment shall be paid on or before the first day of March, 1965; in default of any one of these instalments the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. S.V.S. ----- Sentence of imprisonment set aside; Fine imposed.