ORDER V.D. Gyani I. The petitioner has been convicted on his pleading guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.800 or to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine by the Motor Vehicle Magistrate Indore. 2. A Rubber-Stamp Order has been made use of. An appeal preferred by the petitioner also met with a dismi5wl but the amount of file has been reduced from Rs.800/- to Rs.300/- 3. The Appellate Court has observed that the charge was properly read over to the petitioner. The order-sheet is nothing but a specimen seal impression which reads as follows;- Reading this order-sheet, it is nothing but a rubber-stamp impression of a seal it is difficult to conceive of a judicial order, being reduced to such a mechanism. The order-sheets itself proceeds on the assumption, that copies of the charge-sheet furnished. (b) charge read-over and explained to the accused (c) accused pleaded guilty to the charge (d) order passed thereon and fine deposited by the accused, case be consigned to the record. This rubber-stamp order-sheet does not even envisage a situation where possibly an accused pleaded guilty to the charge nor does it take into account a situation in which fine may not be deposited by an accused who might plead guilty. It cannot be gainsaid that this small rubber-stamp contains as many as 3 different essential stages of a judicial proceeding governing a criminal trial but the same has been reduced to such a mechanised form that it looses all its judicial significance. 4. Learned Government Advocate pointed-out that it was for the accused- petitioner to raise objection and having failed to do so, it cannot now be challenged at this stage in a revision petition. It may be noted there is nothing on the record of the trial Court to show that the copies of the challan-papers were in fact furnished to the accused-petitioner. What follows this rubber-stamp order-sheet is the order, again reduced to the form of a rubber-stamp, this rubber-stamp order except for providing 2 or 3 blanks for inserting the amount of fine, the number of days the accused is sentenced to imprisonment. He is otherwise held to be guilty on pleading guilty to the charge. What follows this rubber-stamp order-sheet is the order, again reduced to the form of a rubber-stamp, this rubber-stamp order except for providing 2 or 3 blanks for inserting the amount of fine, the number of days the accused is sentenced to imprisonment. He is otherwise held to be guilty on pleading guilty to the charge. Sentencing an accused is a serious solemn function of any Judge or Magistrate and it should not be allowed to be reduced to such a mechanical rubber-stamp impression which does not bear any application of mind much less, judicial application of mind. 5. No amount of urgency, exigency or expediency can afford any justification for making a departure from the basic norms of judicial orders and summary trial howsoever summary, it may be, yet it is a judicial trial. A criminal trial has certain admerable features and the first and foremost of all is a judicial consideration by the Magistrate or the Judge concerned. It is hard to conceive, that such consideration can be reduced to the form of rubber-stamp. It is difficult to comprehend that such order-sheets and orders can form part of a judicial proceeding in a criminal trial which undoubtedly embody a system of value and these values do not necessarily have to be changed or converted into a mere rubber-stamp order either for the sake of convenience or exigencies. Such rubber-stamps indicate that they are used as Semipleana Probatio. This Court has in Criminal Revision No. 378/82 Nanuram v. State decided on 16-10-85 has quashed the conviction and sentence. 6. This Revision petition, deserves to be allowed, it is accordingly allowed. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the petitioner.