A court may release an offender on probation if it is satisfied that the offender is not likely to commit further offenses and that the release is in the best interests of the offender and the community.

( 1 ) THE petitioner had been convicted of offencesunder Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act and Section 9 of the Opium Actand had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine ofrs. 100. 00 on first count and rigorous imprisonment for three months on thesecond. However both the sentences of imprisonment were made to runconcurrently. The conviction and sentence of the appellant has been maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition was admitted only on the question ofsentence and notice to the State (C. B. I, in the instant case) was issued. Thesubmission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner precisely is thatthe petitioner is a young man with no prime shady antecedents and he is nota previous convict) rather he is carrying on his business of auto repair workshop at Amritsar and earn his livlihood by dint of hard work.

( 3 ) TO have a peep into the facts under which the petitioner wasapprehended, the prosecution version may be briefly stated. On 6/11/1978 Shri R. N. Mishra, D. S. P. (C. B. I.) received some secretinformation and organised a raiding party comprising inter-alia two officialsof the Electricity Department. The raiding party went to Gali Kalyan Katrabaryan along with the informer who pointed towards two person: viz. thepetitioner and one Sant Singh who were standing by the side of a shop styled lovely Paints near the entrance of the street, at the signal of the informerboth the persons were apprehended and the petitioner was found in possessionof a tin box which yielded 2kgs of hashish and 200 grams of opium. Similarly on search of the canvass bag which was carried by Sant Singh 3 kgsof hashish and 300 grams of opium was recovered. The submission of thelearned counsel for the State, however, is that according to the informationreceived by the Deputy Superintedent of Police both the persons wereindulging is trafficking of contraband opium and hashish. However, thereis no iota of evidence to support the allegation except the bald statement ofshri Misra.

( 4 ) RELIANCE has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioneron a judgment of this Court in Tek Bahadur v. State (1982) 21 Delhi Lawtimes 233 in which 2 kgs. of opium was seized from the accused. Tek Bahadurwho hailed from the interior of Nepal. After calling a report from theprobation Officer and having regard to the recommendation made by theprobation Officer Charanjit Talwar, J. allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner therein on probation of good conduct. The instantcase is, however, sought to be distinguished by the learned counsel for thestate on the ground that there was no allegation therein that the petitionerwas wanting or going to sell the opium to any consumer generally andapparently he was a mere carrier and was a tool in the hands of some antisocial elements. Such a possibility has not been ruled out even in the instantcase because there is no specific evidence that the petitioner was in factindulging in anti-social activities by selling the contraband and the possibilityof his being a mere carrier cannot be ruled out. It may be noticed that hehails from the District Amritsar although he happens to reside in House No. 6429, Gali Kalyan, Katra Baryan, Delhi also.

( 5 ) THE Probation Officer has reported that the petitioner belongs toa Christian family and theeconomic condition of the family is quite satisfactory. The petitioner opened an auto repair workshop at Amritsar about 5years ago and he is earning about Rs. 1500. 00 per mensen therefrom. Thereis no adverse report regarding his antecedents, family background or hisinvolvement in any other anti-social activities. So it would appear that thepetitioner had fallen into the hands of some anti-social persons and indulgedin carrying contraband like opium and hashish. He is not a previous convict. This is further confirmed by a report produced by the counsel for the petitioner from the S. H. O. of P