CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2366 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 04, 2011 Sushil Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On 13.10.2011, the case was adjourned for the counsel to ascertain if the petitioner is still having licence for selling kerosene or not. Counsel for the petitioner today has confirmed that the petitioner is no more having a licence to run kerosene depot. Otherwise, the petitioner has undergone sentence for a period of 3 months and 8 days out of total sentence of 6 months imposed on him. Since the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2366 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, “the Act”), which carries minimum sentence of six months, it will not be appropriate to reduce the sentence already imposed on the petitioner. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case of Joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 585 to urge that this would not be a bar for considering the release of the petitioner on probation even if Section 7 of the Act prescribes minimum sentence. Counsel for the petitioner further says that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and happens to suffer the infirmity of this conduct on one odd occasion. Counsel for the petitioner further undertakes that the petitioner would mend his ways and would never act in a manner in future as alleged against him. In short, the counsel undertakes on behalf of the petitioner to maintain good behaviour. I have considered the case of Joginder Singh (supra). Full Bench of this Court has viewed that Section 361 of the Code prescribes that where in any case the Court could have dealt with an accused person under Section 360 of the Code, but has not done so, it shall record in its judgment special reasons for not having done so, which again would be a pointer to the mandatory nature of the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2366 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: provision. It has, therefore, been held that Section 360 of the Code is mandatory in nature. The Court has further viewed that mere prescription of the minimum sentence under Section 7 of the Act and Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act is no bar to the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. and the same is not a special reason for denying the benefit of probation to a person convicted thereunder. It is equally no bar to the applicability of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Trial Court has also not recorded any reason to deny the benefit of probation to the petitioner. It has also been observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh's case (supra) that it is only in exceptional circumstances and for specific weighty reasons recorded that the benefit of probation to an accused person in those cases can possibly be deviated from. Taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Joginder Singh's case (supra), I am of the view that case for release of the petitioner on probation is made out. State counsel, however, says that it would be entirely within the discretion of this Court to invoke the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to grant the benefit of probation to the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2366 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: petitioner, for which this Court has ample powers. The present revision is partly allowed. Order of conviction passed against the petitioner is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set-aside and the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months. Upon his release, the petitioner shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on or before 25.11.2011 with an undertaking to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of six months and to appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. In addition, the petitioner would be asked to furnish an undertaking before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, that he will not indulge in such activities in future. The amount of fine, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the petitioner and be treated as costs of the proceedings. November 04, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE