Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This revision petitioner has been filed by petitioner against judgment and order dated May 22, 1989. Vide which he was convicted and sentenced for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 61(1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 . In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo imprisonment for one and a half months. His appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated July 6,1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. That judgment is also under challenge. 2. It was allegation, against the petitioner that on March 10, 1985, at about 3.30 P.M., a secret information was received to the effect that petitioner was distilling illicit liquor inside the kitchen of his house. Then, first information report was recorded and raid was conducted. Petitioner was apprehended while committing the offence of illicit distillation of liquor. He was tried, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. It is not necessary to go into the merits of this case as counsel appearing for the petitioner has addressed arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. The counsel has stated that petitioner had been suffering the agony of trial and pending appeal for the 1st more than seventeen years. He has further stated that after his conviction, petitioner had not not indulged in any such offence and now he is leading life of a disciplined citizen. He further stated that the petitioner is only bread winner of the family and, if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, his entire family will suffers. By stating all these facts, he prayed that the petitioner be released on probation. 4. His prayer has vehemetly been opposed by the learned Assistant Advocate Central Haryana. He stated the punished awarded to the petitioner is very less and his guilt is proved on record, as such, his revision petition be dismissed. 5. This court feels that purpose of criminal law is to bring peace, harmony and discipline in the society and at the same time to give an approtunity to an erring individual to discipline/reform himself. This view finds support from the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn). 5. This court feels that purpose of criminal law is to bring peace, harmony and discipline in the society and at the same time to give an approtunity to an erring individual to discipline/reform himself. This view finds support from the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn). (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 161 : [2002(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 7 (SC)], where in paragraph 7, It was observed as under : "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weight the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. With the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to aford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided again within the permissible limits of law." As per information supplied by the counsel, petitioner is now leading life of a disciplined citizen and he assures this Court, through his counsel, that he will not indulge in any such criminal activity. Such a situation, has to be avoided again within the permissible limits of law." As per information supplied by the counsel, petitioner is now leading life of a disciplined citizen and he assures this Court, through his counsel, that he will not indulge in any such criminal activity. 6 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also ratio of judgment in Joginder Singh v. State, of Pun jab. 1980 P.L.R. 585, conviction is upheld. However, the sentence is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. He will furnish an undertaking before the trial Court that during the period of six months, he would act like a disciplined citizen and would not indulge in any criminal activity. He will furnish bond and undertaking within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the above mentioned modification, revision petition stands disposed of.