JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. 1. In this appeal, the judgment dated 28.03.1992 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara convicting the appellant-Bagulia alias Padma Charan Sahu under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R/1 for three months has been assailed. 2. On 17.02.1991 while Kalandi Charana Sahop (P.W. 9) was returning from river, the accused persons armed with lathies chased him and assaulted causing injuries on his body. P.W. 1 - Rahasa Behari Sahoo lodged an F.I.R. on that day at Kydangari Police Out Post which was subsequently registered as Patkura P.S. Case No. 35/91. After investigation the police report was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Session. Two accused persons faced trial for offence under Sections 323/341/307/34 I.P.C. 3. The defence took the plea of denial. 4. 11 witnesses were examined including P.W.9 injured on behalf of the prosecution while defence examined 4 witnesses. F.I.R., medical report amongst other documents were exhibited while one Badi (Lathi) was made M.O. 1. The injury reports of the accused persons were also exhibited. Considering the evidence and plea, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara acquitted the co-accused Indramani Sahu of all the charges. The present appellant was also acquitted of the charge under Sections 307 I.P.C. and 341 I.P.C., but was convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to extend the privilege of Probation of Offenders Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo. R/1 for three months as stated above. 5. Mr. Panda, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that the injury of accused is not explained. The privilege under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1960 read with Section 360 Cr.P.C. is mandatory for the offence like 323 I.P.C. It is further submitted that the accused appellant has already undergone three days of pretrial imprisonment and for the long delay of 27 years, the sending of convict appellant to imprisonment for the minor offence of like 323 I.P.C. would serve no purpose. 6. Learned A.G.A. Miss Ratho, submits that when the trial court refused to extend the privilege of Section 3 of the P.O. Act, this Court upholding the conviction should not test the reasonableness of such ground. 7. Regard being had to the nature of evidence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the conviction for which the conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. of the appellant is upheld. 8. 7. Regard being had to the nature of evidence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the conviction for which the conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. of the appellant is upheld. 8. Having regards to the delay of 27 years in arriving at this stage of appeal in this Court, this Court feels justified to reduce the sentence to the pretrial imprisonment period already undergone. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed to the extent noted above. 10. The L.C.R. be returned to the lower court immediately.