JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - Heard learned counsel for the appellants on admission. I have perused the impugned order dated 29.5.1997 passed by the Additional Session Judge Rajgarh, District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 44/95 whereby, the accused-appellants were convicted, as under- (1) Accused-appellant Devi Sahai: Under Section 324 IPC & granting benefit of Probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act for keeping peace for 2 years and in default 3 months SI and fine of Rs.500/-. (2) Accused-appellants Kailash and Ram Kishan : Under Section 323 IPC and granting benefit of Probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act for Keeping peace for 2 years and in default 1 month SI. 2. During the course of hearing, Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended at the bar that the trial court has not discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail and without examining or discussing the evidence of the witnesses the trial Court was not competent to pass the impugned order as referred to above. He has further stated that there is no finding recorded by the trial court that it is a case of free fight in which both the parties i.e. accused as well as the complainant had participated. He has further contended that the trial Court has ignored the various aspects of the matter and has also failed to appreciate the evidence led on the record by the witnesses. He has further contended that it is a matter of legal right of the appellants to get the appeal admitted at the first instance. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar: SCC 1976 (4) 394 . The question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court in the said case was as to whether it was not necessary for the defence to prove its case with some rigor as the prosecution is required to prove and whether it was necessary for the defence if it succeeds in creating a reasonable doubt on the part of the prosecution which be itself is a sufficient for the Court to read the prosecution version for examining the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in detail after perusing the judgment of the learned ADJ. 3. 3. Keeping in view the gravity of the offences and the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant and also having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, prima-facie, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and the trial court has very rightly granted the benefit of probation to the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years and in default 3 months SI and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 and 324 IPC. I am further of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error. 4. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have a legal right to get the appeal admitted at the first instance, I am of the view that contention of the learned counsel is wholly unfounded since it is always open to this Court to admit or not to admit the appeal at the admission stage itself. There is no binding rule that the Court must have admitted the appeal at the first instance and thereafter, decide the same. 5. There is no merit in appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. The question of dismissal of appeal in limine doesn't arise since a speaking order has been passed by this Court after fully examining all the aspects of the matter.> . *******