S. S. Dewan, J.

1. Balbir Singh was brought to trial for the ooence under Sec.9 of the Opium Act and having been held guilty there under, was sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300.00 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phagwara, on March 8, 1983. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, upheld his conviction but instead of sentencing him, released him on probation for 2 years. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.300/as costs of the proceedings. Feeling dissatisfied he has now come up in revision.

2. The only point that has been urged in this revision petition is that under the law, when an accused person is ordered to be released on probation, he cannot be burdened with costs. Reliance is placed on a decision in Gurbachan Sinqh V/s. The State of Punjab, in support of this contention. Mr. S. S. Aulakh, Advocate, appearing tor the State has nothing to repel this contention. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted to the extent that while the order directing the petitioner to be released on probation is maintained, the direction issued to him for the payment of Rs.300/i as costs of the proceedings is set aside. C