Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against order of conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira dated January 19, 1988 holding petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of one year as also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, or in default thereof to further undergo RI for three months. The appeal preferred against this order of conviction and sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur was dismissed vide order dated August 18, 1988. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case has been that on October 13, 1984 when ASI Gurnihal Singh along with other police officials reached near river bank in the revenue estate of village Kali Rouna on bicycles in connection with patrol duty, a secret information was received that petitioner was distiling illicit liquor by means of a working still in the revenue estate of village Wara Kalo Ronad and if a raid was conducted, the petitioner could be apprehended. On the basis of the information, an intimation was sent to the police station, upon which formal FIR was registered against the petitioner. The place so informed was raided. The petitioner was found distiling illicit liquor by means of a working still. He was apprehended while he was feeding the fire under the working still which was cooled down and dismantled. A drum boiler contained 80 Kgs. of Lahan. Receiver tin contained illicit liquor, out of which 375 milliliters was taken out as sample and the remaining contents, when measured, came to be two bottles. A tube containing illicit liquor was lying near the working still. From the tube also, 375 Mls. of illicit liquor was separated as sample and the remaining contents when measured came to be ninetynine and half-bottles. Ten drum, containing 150 Kgs. of lahan each were also lying. The samples, bottles, tube and drums were taken into possession and sealed with the seal bearing letters `GS. 3. In its endeavour to bring home the offence against the petitioner; prosecution examined Excise Inspector Harbax Singh as P.W.1, Constable Mohinder Singh as P.W.2, Gurnihal Singh ASI as P.W.3, HC Tara Singh as P.W.4 and Constable Avtar Singh as P.W.5. Report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PF and affidavits of formal witnesses Ex. PC and PD were also tendered into evidence. 4. Report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PF and affidavits of formal witnesses Ex. PC and PD were also tendered into evidence. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., petitioner denied the incriminating material put to him and pleaded innocence. He, however, led no evidence in defence. 5. All that has been urged in support of this petition is that this matter has been handing fire for a period of sixteen years and inasmuch as the petitioner has already undergone an agonising trial for so many years, he should be let off on probation under the beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above. Minimum punishment of one year is prescribed if one is convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act for running a working still. Further the facts that petitioner was found in possession of 10 drums, each containing 150 Kgs. of Lahan, as also that he happens to be a previous convict, are in itself enough, not to extend the benefit of provisions contained in the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. 7. Finding no merit in the solitary contention of learned counsel of the petitioner, I dismiss this petition.