HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 247 of 2023 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Ashtana, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by complainant assailing the judgment and order dated 26.02.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, District- Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2013, State Vs. Lalu and another, arising out of Case Crime No.247A of 2001, under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Station- Rasara, District- Ballia, whereby the appellants Lalu and Punjabi have been convicted for offences under Sections 323 I.P.C., however, instead of awarding substantive sentence the trial court considering the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., and extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, has released the accused persons on probation of good conduct for a period of one year. 3. The trial court acquitted the respondents for the charge under Section 504 I.P.C. holding that the essential ingredients of the said offence were not made out from the evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has erred in granting the benefit of probation and has also wrongly acquitted the accused persons for offences under Section 504 I.P.C. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This Court finds that the trial court has, upon due appreciation of evidence on record, recorded a finding of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anand Prakash Srivastava, Bipin Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Syed Nadeem Ahmad Kamlesh .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. While considering the question of sentence, the trial court has elaborately discussed the application of provisions of Section 360 I.P.C. and the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. It is also noteworthy that the incident in question is about two decades old and the trial court has taken into consideration the advanced age of the accused persons while extending the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 7. The trial court has exercised its discretion judiciously, taking into account the nature of offence, attendant circumstances and absence of criminal antecedents of the accused persons. The reasoning assigned by the trial court does not suffer from any perversity or arbitrariness. 8. In so far as, the acquittal under Section 504 I.P.C. is concerned, the trial court has recorded a categorical finding that the essential ingredients of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace have not been established. The submissions made in the present appeal is not of such nature as to persuade the Court to take a different view. 9. The trial court has also placed reliance upon the law laid down in Subhash Chand & Others Vs. State Of U.P., 2016(2) ALJ 417, wherein it has been held that ordinarily the benefit of probation should be extended to eligible offenders and that where the provisions of probation are applicable, the same ought to be given due effect and cannot be lightly ignored in favour of imposing the sentence under the Indian Penal Code. 10. It is well settled that the grant of benefit under the probation laws is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on sound legal principles. 11. No illegality, perversity or material irregularity has been demonstrated in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference by this Court at the admission stage. 12. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed on admission stage. . C372 No. 247 of 2023 2 March 16, 2026 P. Pandey C372 No. 247 of 2023 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad