JUDGMENT 1. - This is a State appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 11.4.1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur by which he allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondent and set aside the judgment and order dated 6.6.1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur by which Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur convicted the accused-respondent under section 54(A) the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') and sentenced him to six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months S.I. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : On 7.2.1974, 85 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from the accused-respondent and, thereafter, a challan was filed in the lower Court by the Excise Inspector and after trial, accused-respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur vide his judgment and order dated 6.6.1978 in the manner as stated above. Against the judgment and order dated 6.6.1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur, accused-respondent preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, which was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur and the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur by his judgment dated 11.4.1980 allowed the appeal of the accused-respondent acquitted him and set aside the judgment and order dated 6.6.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur, holding inter alia that Excise Inspector was not competent to file the challan as he was not an Excise Officer within the meaning of Section 3(7) of the Act of 1950 and thus, was not competent to make a complaint in respect of the offence enumerated in Section 67(1)(a) of the Act of 1950. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 11.4.1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, the State has preferred this appeal. 3. Since accused-respondent was not being represented by any counsel, this Court on 18.7.2000 appointed Shri L.D. Khatri, Advocate as amicus curaie to plead the case of accused-respondent in this appeal. 4. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 11.4.1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, the State has preferred this appeal. 3. Since accused-respondent was not being represented by any counsel, this Court on 18.7.2000 appointed Shri L.D. Khatri, Advocate as amicus curaie to plead the case of accused-respondent in this appeal. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that Excise Inspector should be treated as Excise Officer and in this respect he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Rajasthan v. Laxman-singh, 1980 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 557 and this proposition of law has been admitted by the learned counsel for the accused-respondent also. 5. So far as the question whether Excise Inspector is Excise Officer within the meaning of Section 3(7) of the Act of 1950 or not is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in The State of Rajasthan v. Laxmansingh (supra), has held thus:- "Thus, in view of what we have discussed above particularly in view of Notification No. 3, quoted above, and in view of Rr. 88 & 89, Excise Inspectors have been invested with the powers of Excise Officers and as such, they are Excise Officers within the meaning of Section 3(7) of the Act, so they are competent to make a complaint or the report in respect of the offences enumerated in Section 67(1)(a) on which Magistrate can take cognizance. In this view of the matter both the appeals deserve to be allowed and orders of acquittal by the learned Magistrate deserve to be set aside." 6. In view of the above law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, it is very much clear that Excise Inspector is an Excise Officer and thus, he was competent to file challan. Hence, the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur cannot be sustained and his judgment dated 11.4.1980 is liable to be set aside and the State appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. The next question that arises for consideration is what order should be passed on sentence. 8. Looking to the fact that the incident in the present case occurred on 7.2.1974, accused-respondent was first convicted on 6.6.1978, he has faced trial for more than six years, and now 16 years have elapsed and this period is enough to exhaust anybody both mentally and economically. 8. Looking to the fact that the incident in the present case occurred on 7.2.1974, accused-respondent was first convicted on 6.6.1978, he has faced trial for more than six years, and now 16 years have elapsed and this period is enough to exhaust anybody both mentally and economically. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that accused-respondent should be released on probation while maintaining his conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur.Hence, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is allowed and the judgment and order dated 11.4.1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur are set aside and the conviction of the accused-respondent by Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur vide his judgment dated 6.6.1978 under section 54(A) of the Act of 1950 is maintained, but instead of sentencing him for the said offence, I would direct that he shall be released on probation provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur (trial Court) within a period of two months from today to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year.The State appeal stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******