S.S. Byas, J.
1. Accused Doongar Ram was convicted under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 (hereinafter to be teferred as 'the Act') and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo four months like imprisonment by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal vide his judgment dated 15-6-78. The accused went in appeal, which was heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. His appeal was partly allowed. His conviction was maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to six months from that of one year and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- was reduced to that of Rs. 200/-. The accused has come up in revision.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the noon of 12-11-76, the accused was found coming on foot by PW. 7 Madanlal, the then S.H.O., police station, Bhinmal. The accused was carrying two 'Zarikens' wrapped in a cloth. He was detained and the 'Zarikens' were seized in the presence of Motbirs. When the 'Zarikens' were opened, each was found containing illicit liquor. The sample of liquor was taken from each of the two 'Zarikens' and were sealed. A case was registered against the accused. The samples were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for chemical examination. Both the samples were found to be liquor. On the completion of investigation, the police presented a challan against the accused, which led to his trial and prosecution.
3. Keeping in view the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Counsel did not challenge the conviction of the accused. His only submission is that the benefit of probation of good conduct should be extended to the accused. It was argued that the total quantity of illicit liquor found in the possession of the accused was nearly 10 bottles. No previous conviction stands at his discredit. The courts below did not record reasons for not giving the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the move and contended that it was not a fit case for extending the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration.
4. Admittedly, the total quantity of illicit liquor found in the possession of the accused was nearly 10 bottles. No previous conviction stands at the discredit of the accused. The courts below did not record reasons under Section 361. Cr. P.C. for not extending the benefit of probation to the accused. The Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 has lost its life and is now a dead law. In these circumstances, it would not be improper to extend the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused.
4. In the result, the revision h partly allowed. The conviction of accused Doongara Ram under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 is maintained, but sentences awarded to him are set aside. Instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, it is hereby directed that he be released on his entering into a bond for a sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) together with a surety is the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal to appear and receive sentence during the period of two years' and in the mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The accused is allowed one month's time to furnish the aforesaid bonds.