JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J 1. The case of prosecution is that on 1.11.1988, police party along with Excise Inspector raided the house of accused, where he was found present and suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered two drums of lahan. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Kathuria appearing for the petitioner has stated that he will not be in position to assail the findings of two Courts below as the official witnesses have testified and defence failed to make any dent in the cross-examination. He has been very candid enough to state that there is no reason for him to impeach the credibility of the witnesses as they were not inimical to the accused. Mr. Kathuria otherwise has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity, which calls for interference by the revisional Court. Mr. Kathuria stated that in the present case raid was conducted on 1.11.1988. A period of more than 19 years has lapsed since sentence awarded was only six months. 4. Taking totality of the circumstances and the submissions made above by Mr. Kathuria into account, I deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on probation as the ends of justice will be met. Accordingly, the petitioner is released on probation for a period of six months to maintain good conduct and behaviour and bonds to this effect will be furnished before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. However, cost of litigation is assessed as Rs.10,000/-. 5. For the offence committed, minimum sentence is prescribed, but a Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 585, has held that the probation can be granted even where minimum sentence is prescribed. 6. Non-deposit of cost by the petitioner shall be construed as dismissal of the petition. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.