Judgment :- (Criminal Revision case under Section 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C., against the Judgment in CRL.A.No.193 of 2001, dated 03/10/2002 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam preferred against the order in CC No.1769 of 2000, dated 23/10/2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Yelamanchili.) This is a revision filed by the accused-petitioners against the judgment dated 23-10-2001 in C.C.No.1769 of 2000, passed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yelamanchili, convicting the petitioners-accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. In Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2001 filed by the petitioners, the conviction and sentence has been upheld by the learned VII Additional District & Session Judge, Visakhapatnam. The case of the prosecution was that on 08-03-2000 at about 3-00 p.m., A.1 and A.2 were found carrying two cans of I.D. liquor. They were intercepted by PW.1-Excise Sub-Inspector, Nakkapalli, and on enquiry, the petitioners-accused informed him that they had purchased the liquor from an unknown person and were taking it for the purpose of sale. The prosecution established its case on the basis of cogent evidence. No illegality is pointed out in the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. Therefore, there is nothing for this Court to interfere in the matter. However, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that according to the prosecution, the petitioners had stated that they had ‘purchased an intoxicant’, and as such, even if the conviction were to be upheld, it can only be based on Section 34(g) but not on 34(a) of the Act. According to the prosecution case, it was the contention of the petitioners that they had purchased the intoxicant, but at the same time, they had also stated that it was for the purpose of ‘sale’. According to the prosecution case, it was the contention of the petitioners that they had purchased the intoxicant, but at the same time, they had also stated that it was for the purpose of ‘sale’. In any case, the petitioners were found ‘in possession and transporting the intoxicant’ and therefore, the case falls under Section 34(a) of the Act and there is no reason for this Court to interfere either in the conviction or in the sentence as the trial Court has imposed the punishment prescribed for the said offence is three years. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) and submitted that in each and every case, where the punishment prescribed for the offence is an imprisonment for a term of 7 years or less, or the punishment is of fine only, each and every Court, at the time of conviction of the accused, has to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C., and in case, the benefits under Section 360 Cr.P.C., are not extended to an accused convicted for such an offence, the Court has to record the reasons for not extending the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C., to the said accused after convicting him. The grant of benefit of release on probation of good conduct has to be considered in terms of Section 360(1) Cr.P.C. Sub-section (3) to Section 360 Cr.P.C., lays down that extension of such a benefit can be considered in cases where the accused is convicted for the offences, which carry the imprisonment of not more than two years and release can be ordered in lieu of the sentence after due admonition. This question has already come up before this Court and by an elaborate judgment reported in Guvvala Kotaiah v. State of A.P. (1990 Crl. L.J. 934), this Court also held that application of Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C. was mandatory. A bare perusal of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C., would show that after a person is convicted, on consideration of the circumstances mentioned in Section 360 Cr.P.C., it if appears to the Court that it would be expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond. Similar circumstances are there in sub-section 3 of Section 360 Cr.P.C., for ordering the release after admonition. The mandate of Section 361 Cr.P.C. that in a judgment of conviction and sentence, the Court should write the reasons for not granting the relief under Section 360 Cr.P.C., makes it amply clear that before an order of sentence is passed, the Courts should consider the grant of benefits under Section 360 Cr.P.C. It appears from the conjoint reading of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C., that it is a duty cast on the Courts and no separate application is necessary to be made by the accused for grant of such benefit. Section 360 Cr.P.C., further lays down that instead of sentencing an accused, in the circumstances mentioned in Section 360 Cr.P.C., the Court may direct his release on his entering into a bond. Since in the present case, the Court has not considered quashing of granting referring benefit its under Section 360 or 361 Cr.P.C., while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, I set aside the sentence imposed by the Courts below and remand the matter to the trial Court as the power under Section 360 Cr.P.C., can be exercised by the trial Court as well. In case, the trial Court finds that the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C., cannot be extended to the petitioners, the learned Judge shall record the reason in terms of Section 361 Cr.P.C., and impose the sentence. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, disposed of. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this judgment to all the Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh.