ORDER : V Srinivas, J. Assailing the common judgment dated 26.05.2011 in Crl.A.No.137 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Anantapur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 13.09.2010 in C.C.No.495 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate) at Anantapur, for the offences under section 18(c) of Drugs Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, Section 18(a), punishable under Section 28 of the Act and Section 22(1)(cca), punishable under Section 22(3) of the Act, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 31.05.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1667 of 2011. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). On 24.08.2004 at about 10.40 a.m., P.W.1-Drug Inspector, who is empowered to institute a case under Section 32 of the Act, visited the shop of M/s. Suraj Traders (Shop), 23/9 Gandhi Bazar, Anantapur along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and at that time accused was doing business and that P.W.1 searched the shop and found fourteen types of drugs along with other fancy items stocked in the shop, which appears to have been kept for sale without any license and purchase bills. ii). Then P.W.1 taken six types of drugs on payment of cash of Rs.710/- under bill No.178/D, dated 24.08.2004 and recorded them in form-16. The remaining quantity of fourteen types of drugs were seized from the shop of accused in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 under the cover of Ex.P.4 panchanama, as he did not produce any purchase bills and did not possess any license. The same was produced before the Court for getting order of safe custody under cover of Exs.P.6 and P.7. iii). Ex.P.8 notice was issued to the accused by P.W.1 called for certain documents and information as required and the same was acknowledged by him under Ex.P.9. Then, he requested time to submit his explanation under Ex.P.10 reply. iv). On 28.09.2004, Ex.P.12 reply, dated 27.09.2004 received from accused stating that the seized drugs are not belong to him and that they were mis-sent by transport company. However, he did not produce any proof in support of his version. Then, he requested time to submit his explanation under Ex.P.10 reply. iv). On 28.09.2004, Ex.P.12 reply, dated 27.09.2004 received from accused stating that the seized drugs are not belong to him and that they were mis-sent by transport company. However, he did not produce any proof in support of his version. Hence, the complaint. 4. On perusal, cognizance was taken and numbered as C.C.No.495 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate) at Anantapur, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii), 18(a) punishable under Section 28 and 22(1)(cca) punishable under Section 22(3) of the Act, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months, sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of fifteen (15) days and also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.137 of 2010, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Anantapur and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 26.05.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Against the said common judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri Md.Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri Md.Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner; that testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 is highly interested and cannot be relied upon; that the Courts below failed to consider the testimony of D.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.D.1; that the seizure of drugs itself is highly doubtful; that mere possession of drugs is not an offence and it is an offence only if the drugs are exhibited for sale; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.W.1 is supported and corroborated with the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are independent mediators; that prosecution proved the offences that accused found in possession of fourteen types of drugs for the purpose of sale without any license or purchase bills; that the testimony of D.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.D.1 is of no use to discard the prosecution version; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner/accused for the said offences; that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.13. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. It is the main contention of the petitioner/accused that the drugs in question are not belongs to him and they were mis-sent to him by the transport company. In support of the said contention, he relied upon testimony of D.W.1, who is clerk in Anantapur Food Transport and D.W.2, who transport the articles in a riksha. 12. Firstly, this Court inclined to see the veracity in the prosecution case by evaluating the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 and material available on record. In support of the said contention, he relied upon testimony of D.W.1, who is clerk in Anantapur Food Transport and D.W.2, who transport the articles in a riksha. 12. Firstly, this Court inclined to see the veracity in the prosecution case by evaluating the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 and material available on record. P.W.1, who is drug inspector, testified about the conducting of raid on 24.08.2004 in the shop of accused and seizure of M.O.1 drug, which are placed for sale without any license or purchase bills, lifting of samples for the purpose of analysis under the cover of Ex.P.4 panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1. 13. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.1 is fully corroborated and consist with the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 about the visiting of said shop, seizure of M.O.1 drug and lifting of samples. Even, accused did not raise any specific defence regarding seizure of M.O.1 and lifting of samples on the date of inspection of his shop. Furthermore, it is not case of accused that there is enmity between himself and P.Ws.2 and 3 to depose false against him. His only contention, as stated supra, is that the articles were mis-sent by the transport company and M.O.1 does not belongs to him. Thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution categorically proved the seizure of M.O.1 from the shop of accused and lifting of sample in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and no material is placed on record by the accused to disbelieve the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. 14. Now, coming to the defence taken by the petitioner with regard to the mis-sent of M.O.1 to his shop by the transport company is concerned, as stated supra, he relied on testimony of D.Ws.1 and 2. 15. On perusal of testimony of D.W.1, during cross examination, he categorically admitted that he does not know what type of articles were exhibited in the racks of the petitioner. Even he did not produce any register showing the entries relating to the consignment in question and not shown the name of the owner of the consignment to whom it should have been actually delivered. No one claimed the ownership of the said consignment. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.D.1, which was issued two days after the seizure of consignment by P.W.1. No one claimed the ownership of the said consignment. Furthermore, on perusal of Ex.D.1, which was issued two days after the seizure of consignment by P.W.1. More so, on perusal of Ex.P.10, petitioner sought one (1) week time to give reply to Ex.P.8 notice and put the said defence in Ex.P.12 reply. Thereby, all the circumstances go to show that the defence made by the accused is not reliable and invented by him for the purpose of this case. Even the testimony of petitioner as D.W.3 is of no use to the defence set up by him as it is only with regard to the turnover of his business as well the testimony of D.W.2 is of no use to prove the case of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above, the prosecution categorically established the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. The trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused has found in illegal possession of drugs and placed the same for sale without any license or purchase bills and thereby committed the said offences. 17. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. 18. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish the charges leveled against the petitioner/accused and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Trial Court as well Sessions Court in appreciating the material on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offences. 19. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offences. 19. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the offence was occurred on 24.08.2004 and pleaded mercy as there was no past history of criminal antecedents, he is an old, aged person, suffering from serious ailments and in support of the same, he placed copies of medical record and seeks to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as “P.O. Act”). 20. The P.O. Act aims to provide the benefit of releasing offenders on probation of good conduct instead of imprisoning them. It emphasizes reformation and rehabilitation, steering away from the negative effects of jail life. The court then examined Section 4 of the Act, which empowers the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. 21. Section 4(1) allows the court to direct an offender to enter into a bond, appear for sentencing when called upon, and maintain good behavior during a specified period. This court also perused the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lakhvir Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 25 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the P.O. Act. It is an Act to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. 22. In the case on hand, considering the fact that the offence said to be happened on 24.08.2004 and by that time the revision petitioner was aged about 49 years, now became an old, aged person suffering from serious ailments; that he was not running any business; that he has no previous criminal antecedents; that the offence was said to have taken place in the year, 2004 and more than twenty (20) years have already been lapsed and that now to serve the remaining sentence by the petitioner/accused would amounts to travesty of justice, to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act. Furthermore, there is no adverse report against him about his conduct in society otherwise the same would have been brought to the notice of this court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Furthermore, there is no adverse report against him about his conduct in society otherwise the same would have been brought to the notice of this court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. More so, there is no specific provision in Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which ruled out applicability of Probation of Offenders Act and no such amendment appears to have been introduced in the Act till the date the case in hand was decided. 23. Having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, health condition of the petitioner and the character of the petitioner, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct him to be released on his entering into a bond. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, it is a fit case, wherein the benefit of probation can be extended to the petitioner/accused/offender in the light of Section 4 of the P.O. Act and relevant judicial pronouncements. Hence, the petitioner/accused be released with an undertaking, by executing a bond, that he shall maintain good behaviour for a period one (1) year. 24. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part The revision petitioner is directed to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, by entering into a bond, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate) at Anantapur within fifteen (15) days from the date of copy of this order made ready, to ensure that he will maintain peace and good behavior for a period of one (1) year, failing which, he can be called upon to serve the sentence imposed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.