JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - The Petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court u/s 294 and 506, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months on each Count. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge while maintaining the conviction u/s 294, Indian Penal Code altered the conviction u/s 506, Indian Penal Code to one u/s 355, Indian Penal Code. He also set aside the substantive sentences of imprisonment and awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- on each Count with a default sentence of R.I. for two months. 2. The Petitioner is a journalist while the informant (P.W. 1) is a Sub-Assistant Engineer of the Public Work Department. Prosecution case was that on 3-2-1976 while P.W. 1 was going to the work site with his staff, the Petitioner called him in a commanding tone and said that he had gone to his office thrice, but did not find him there. When P.W. 1 said that being a field worker he usually remained absent from the office the Petitioner challenged him saying that he (P.W. 1) was selling away the roadside trees and misappropriating the sale proceeds thereof. P.W. 1 took exception to this and replied politely that it would have been better for the Petitioner to go to the office and make a complaint instead of humiliating him in a public place. At this, the Petitioner lost temper and hurled abuses in obscene language. He also raised his shoes to assault P.W. 1. 3. On the same day P.W. 1 submitted a report to his superior officer who, in his turn, forwarded the same to the Officer-in-charge, Gunupur Police Station. After due investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 294 and 506, Indian Penal Code was submitted by the police. 4. At die trial, the Petitioner denied the occurrence and contended that the case was falsely foisted against him as he had got published some allegations against the officers of the P.W.D. of Gunupur area in the local dailies - Durmukha and Matrubhumi. 5. The order of conviction is not assailed in this criminal revision which was admitted for hearing on the question of sentence only. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that it was a fit case for releasing the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. 5. The order of conviction is not assailed in this criminal revision which was admitted for hearing on the question of sentence only. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that it was a fit case for releasing the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. The Court can release an offender under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act only when having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender it is of opinion that it is expedient to do so. The benefit of probation should not be granted to educated and experienced men of the world who deliberately flout the law. If such persons were to be released on probation, the very object with which the Probation of Offenders Act was enacted would be defeated and an impression would be created in the minds of the criminals that they could commit offences with impunity. The Petitioner is a grown up man and a journalist. Not only he used obscene language but raised him shows to assault a public servant at a public place. The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be applied to such a case, considering the nature of the offence, in the light of the further fact that the offence was committed by one who was expected to have greater sense of responsibility. More respectable and better educated a man is the less temptation there should be to commit offences. Conduct of the Petitioner manifests a very mischievous disposition. I am, therefore, not inclined to give him the benefit of probation. 7. The sentence awarded by the appellate Court for the offence u/s 355, Indian Penal Code is appropriate. But the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence u/s 294, Indian Penal Code appears to be excessive and I reduce the same to a sum of Rs. 100/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. 8. The criminal revision stands dismissed subject to the above modification. Final Result : Dismissed