Rajendra Saxena, J. - (1.) Notice of the petition was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, this case is being finally disposed of at this stage.
(2.) The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur in Criminal case No. 36/82 by his judgment dated 12-6-86 found guilty petitioner Puran Singh for offence under Section 54(a) and (d) of the Excise Act and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- in each count and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's imprisonment. He also ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar Camp Sri Karanpur, who by his judgment dated 22-2-90 partly accepted the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 54(a) and (d) of the Excise Act, instead of sentencing him, gave the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that if the petitioner executed a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/- and furnished a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate to the effect that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years and will not commit such offence during this period and in case of any default, shall appear before the Court for undergoing the sentence, he be released on probation. The petitioner was also directed to deposit Rs. 300/- as costs for prosecution. For submitting the bonds and depositing the said amount, the petitioner was allowed one month's time. It appears that the petitioner neither deposited the said amount nor executed the personal and surety bonds, with in the stipulated period.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner misconstrued the order of the learned Sessions Judge and was under the impression that he was sentenced to the period already under gone by him and as such he did not deposit the cost amount and furnish the personal and surety bonds. He has contended that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner and that the period for depositing the amount and furnishing the personal and surety bonds before the learned Magistrate be extended in the interest of justice.;