JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.5.1986, the police party comprising constables Gurmel Singh and Hardial Singh headed by HC Avtar Singh was going towards the bridge of canal Abohar branch and when the police party reached the bridge, they noticed the emission of smoke from the western side of the canal. Police party reached on at point where there was emission of smoke. Dyal Singh accused was found distilling illicit liquor by means of working still. At the time of raid, he was found feeding fire in the hearth of the still. Drum containing about 90 kgs. of lahan was lying on the hearth of the still. It was being used as boiler. Working still was dismantled and its components were cooled down. It was being used as boiler. Liquor was slowly trickling and falling in a gallon which was being used as receiver. Out of the recovered liquor, one nip was drawn out as sample. Remaining liquor measured 4-3/4 bottles. After liquor had been measured, it was transferred in the same gallon. Drum boiler, nip and the gallon were sealed with the seal of HC Avtar Singh bearing impression AS. Seal impression Ex. P1 was prepared at the spot. Components of the working still namely drum boiler, mardani, plastic tube etc. were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB attested by constable Gurdial Singh and Hardial Singh. Ruqa Ex. PC was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. Rough site plan Ex. PD was prepared at the spot with correct marginal notes. On return to the police station the same day, HC Avtar Singh deposited the case property with MHC Balwinder Singh. Sample nip was sent to the chemical examiner for chemical examination who found the same to be containing illicit liquor vide report Ex. PE. Excise Inspector Surjit Singh tested the contents of drum boiler from their taste, colour and smell and found them to be fully fermented and partially distilled lahan. After investigation, accused was challaned. Accused was charged under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by the learned Magistrate. 2. At the conclusion of the trial, accused was found guilty of the charge framed against him. He was accordingly convicted thereunder and sentenced to under go RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. After investigation, accused was challaned. Accused was charged under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by the learned Magistrate. 2. At the conclusion of the trial, accused was found guilty of the charge framed against him. He was accordingly convicted thereunder and sentenced to under go RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, or in default to undergo further RI for 6 months vide order dated 19.5.1987 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Muktsar. Accused went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.11.1987. 3. Still not satisfied, accused has approached this court through this revision. 4. Conviction of the accused rests on the statements of HC Avtar Singh and constable Gurdial Singh. It is true that they are police officials interested in the success of the case detected by them but it is equally true that there is no animus suggested to them for implicating the accused falsely. HC Avtar Singh could have been expected to join some independent witness with him if he had been proceeding on raid acting on some secret information. Apprehension of the accused was sudden and unexpected. LC Gurdial Singh PW stated that pipa was being used as receiver. HC Avtar Singh stated that gallon was being used as receiver. There is difference between gallon and pipa. Gallon was not shown to constable Gurdial Singh by the learned defence counsel. If it had been shown to him, he could have been asked whether this was gallon or pipa. No wonder, constable Gurdail Singh was taking pipa as gallon or gallon as pipa in common parlance. Description of gallon as pipa by constable Gurdial Singh could be due to the fading of memory after lapse of time. 5. In my opinion, accused was rightly convicted by the two courts below. At the time of commission of the offence, the accused was 22-23 years old. He was thus a youthful offender. He could not have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 because he was a previous convict five times. 5. In my opinion, accused was rightly convicted by the two courts below. At the time of commission of the offence, the accused was 22-23 years old. He was thus a youthful offender. He could not have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 because he was a previous convict five times. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) provides for release on probation of good conduct or after admonition any person not under 21 years of age who is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or less or any person under 21 years of age or any woman who is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if no previous offence is proved against the offender and if it appears to the court, before which he is convicted, having regard to the age, character or antecedents of the offender and to the circumstances of the case in which the offence was committed that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition. Seection 361 of the Code which is mandatory in nature enjoins upon the court to record specific reasons if a convict is not dealt with under section 360 of the Code. In Bishnu Deo Shaw v. State of West Bengal, 1979 Criminal Law Journal 841, the Apex Court made the following observations :- "Section 361 thus creates a duty upon the court to apply the provisions of section 360 wherever it is possible to do so and to state "special reasons" if it does not do so. In the context of section 360, the "special reasons" contemplated by section 361 must be such as to compel the court to hold that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedents of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. This is same indication by the legislature that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders and not mere deterrence are now among the foremost objects of the administration of criminal justice in our country." 6. Petitioner was on earlier occasions released on probation of good conduct. Release on probation of good conduct failed to reform him. This is same indication by the legislature that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders and not mere deterrence are now among the foremost objects of the administration of criminal justice in our country." 6. Petitioner was on earlier occasions released on probation of good conduct. Release on probation of good conduct failed to reform him. It is only substantive sentence which might act as deterrent to him. In this case, thus, the release of the petitioner on probation of good conduct will not be conducive to the object for which the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958/sections 360/361 in the Code of Criminal Procedure was/were enacted. As one year sentence and fine of Rs. 5,000/- is the minimum provided for these offences in the Punjab Excise Act, there can be no slashing in sentence. For the reeason given above, this criminal revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.