The court held that the lower courts erred in denying the petitioners the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, without considering their individual circumstances and character. The court also held that the minimum sentence provision in Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, did not bar the application of probation provisions to offenses with minimum sentences.

1. - A common question of law has been raised in the above mentioned three criminal revisions, therefore, they are decided by single order.

2. All the three petitioners were convicted under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for brevity, 'Excise Act') and have been sentenced to different period of imprisonment & fine by the trial Court. Petitioner in Petition No 77/90 was sentenced by the appellate Court to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo one month's further sentence, Petitioner in Revision Petition No. 87/90, was sentenced by the appellate Court for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and, in Petition No. 91/90, the petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of which, he was sentenced to further simple imprisonment for 15 days.

3. None of the learned counsel for the petitioners presses their petitions on merits, but it is contended that all the petitioners deserve to be given benefit of the provisions of Section 360, Cr.P.C. or Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity, 'the Act, 1958'), which has been wrongly denied to them. It is also pointed out that no reasons were recorded by the courts below regarding refusal to give above benefit to the petitioners and whatever reasons have been given, are no reasons in eye of law.

4. It is contended by Miss Sumitra Goyal. learned Public Prosecutor, that benefit of the provisions of Act, 1958/Section 160, Cr.P.C. could not be given to them, as minimum sentence of six months is provided in Section 54 of the Excise Act, 1950. It is, therefore, contended that the courts below have rightly denied this benefit to the petitioners.

5. There is no doubt that Section 54 of the Excise Act does provides that a person, who is found guilty under the provisions of Section mentioned above, shall be punished with a minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months and fine of two hundred rupees. The maximum sentence provided is three years and fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees. Reliance was placed by the learned Public Prosecutor on State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.R. Rangadamapa (AIR 1982 SC 1492) , wherein while considering the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, it was observed by the Apex Court that where provision for minimum sentence is provided, the Court is not entitled to reduce the same beyond the minimum sentence provided in Section itself. In my opinion, this authority is not applicable to the present contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. What is contended is whether the petitioners were entitled to benefit of the provisions of Act, 1950/Section 360, Cr.P.C. and not that they should have been given less sentence than the minimum provided in Section 54 of the Excise Act. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is a mile-stone in the progress of liberal trend of reform in the field of criminology. It is result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is to reform the individual offender than to punish him. Hence, this Act came to be enacted, keeping in view the purpose mentioned above. Section 4 of the Act, 1958 clearly provides that when any person is found guilty to have committed an offence, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of the opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and character of the offender, that it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he may be released on his entering into a bond with or without sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period