JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment/order dated 15.01.1992 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.208/1990, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 21/2 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to undergo 4 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.05.1990 injured Phool Chand submitted an oral report, whereupon an FIR No.110/1990 was lodged at Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar for the offence under section 307 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police filed the challan before the Magistrate concerned, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter the charges were framed against the accused person, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 15.01.1992 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that with a view to purchase the peace in mind, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place about 25 years' ago from today; the appellant is facing the trial since the last 25 years; when the occurrence took place, the appellant was young and now the appellant is old aged person; the accused appellant has remained in custody for ten days; he is married person and having the children of marriageable age, he belongs to good and reputed society; either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.; and if not, then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 5. 5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Naib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1986 Cr.L.J. 2061 , wherein their Lordships observed as under: "Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. As to the sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view. We are informed that the appellant is a Teacher in a Government School. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation. Appeal dismissed." 6. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He has contended that neither the benefit of probation should be given to the appellant nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the occurrence took place on 11.05.1990 i.e. approximately 25 years ago from today and the accused petitioner is facing trial from last 25 years and this is first offence of his life and he is having marriage children, I do not think it proper to release the accused appellant on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this appeal is disposed of with the following directions: i) The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed; ii) His conviction is maintained; iii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. iv) The sentence of the accused appellant was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated hereinabove. Appeal disposed of. *******