VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) (I) What is the correct import of the phrase "relase him after due admonition appearing in Sec. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as well as consequential aspect thereto; viz. (ii) in what manner the said empowering provision pertaining to "admonition" is to be exercised and executed by the concerned Court and or to put it other way whether a mere recital in the judgment, to quote, "all the accused are hereby released after due admonition under Sec. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958" (without there being any material on the record to indicate that an act of administering admonition to the accused was actually performed by the Court) by itself can be said to be a truly sufficient compliance with relevant provisions of the said Act ? are the questions which arises for consideration in this Criminal Revision Application. ( 2 ) THE facts insofar as they are relevant for this Revision, are that one vaghari Jenabhai Atabhai lodged a complaint before the Kalol Police Station alleging that on 5/06/1979, at about 7-00 p. m. when he was sitting outside his house, the respondent-accused viz. Vaghari Jesangbhai Ugrabhai and three others came abusing, entered his house and started giving kick and fist blows until he was rescued and separated by two prosecution witnesses viz. P. W. 2 - Mangaji Vasaji and P. W. 3 - Bhimaji Jenaji. After the investigation was over all the accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Secs. 323, 451 and 114 of the I. P. C. before the learned J. M. F. C. to stand the trial. ( 3 ) AT the trial, all the four accused pleaded not guilty and submitted written defence statement at Ex. 20. The common defence of the accused is that they are falsely implicated out of old enmity. The nephew of the present complainant namely Manka resident of Bombay had at the instance of the present complainant filed false case at Bombay wherein they were ultimately acquitted etc. etc. ( 4 ) AT the end of the trial, by a judgment and order dated 30/12/1980, the trial Court convicted all the four accused for offences under Secs. 451, 323 and 114 I. P. C. sentencing each of them to undergo 3 days S. I. and fine of Rs. 50. etc. ( 4 ) AT the end of the trial, by a judgment and order dated 30/12/1980, the trial Court convicted all the four accused for offences under Secs. 451, 323 and 114 I. P. C. sentencing each of them to undergo 3 days S. I. and fine of Rs. 50. 00 and in default, to further undergo S. I. for 5 days for offence under Sec. 451 I. P. C. and also to undergo S. I. for 4 days and fine of Rs. 50. 00 and in default, to further undergo S. I. for 5 days for offence under Sec. 323 I. P. C. ( 5 ) THAT feeling aggrieved and dissatifised by the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the respondent-accused preferred a criminal Appeal - the same being Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1981 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana. This appeal was partly allowed by a judgment and order dated 12/06/1981 - confirming the order of conviction passed by the trial Court, so far as the order of sentence was concerned, the same was modified to the extent that accused were ordered to be released after due admonition under Sec. 3 of the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter for short - "the said Act" ). ( 6 ) THAT feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the applicant herein (original complainant) has challenged the same by way of present Criminal Revision application. ( 7 ) MR. N. C. Naik, the learned Advocate for the applicant-complainant is absent. However, on going through the grounds raised in Memo of Revision application, in substance it has been contended that the learned Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion to admonish accused persons under Sec. 3 of the said Act quite arbitrarily and therefore the impugned judgment and order admonishing the accused be quashed and set aside and in its place order of sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused be restored. ( 8 ) AS against the above, the learned Advocate Mr. J. V. Desai, appearing for the accused has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions judge failing in his effort to persuade this Court to acquit all accused. ( 9 ) MR. K. H. Baxi, the learned Addl. ( 8 ) AS against the above, the learned Advocate Mr. J. V. Desai, appearing for the accused has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions judge failing in his effort to persuade this Court to acquit all accused. ( 9 ) MR. K. H. Baxi, the learned Addl. P. P. has carefully taken me throught the impugned judgment and order as well as the entire record of the case. Mr. Baxi at the very outset frankly submitted that in this Revision Application, there are concurrent findings on questions of the facts based on reasonable appreciation of evidence by two Courts and therefore he was not in a position to assail and dislodge the order of conviction. He also frankly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly exercised his discretion in resorting to Sec. 3 of the Act by passing an order of admonition against the accused. However, the main grievance of Mr. Baxi is that there is nothing either in the judgment or anywhere in the entire record to show as to (i) whether, in fact the accused were duly admonished or not; and (ii) if in case accused were admonished, then as to how and in what manner they were admonished before they were ordered to be so released ? In order to drive home this submission. Mr. Baxi has first invited my attention to the impugned order, which reads as under :"all the accused are hereby released after due admonition under Sec. 3 of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Amount of fine to be refunded, if paid by the accused. "thereafter, Mr. Baxi had taken me through the relevant portion of the rojkam proceedings of the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, which reads as under :"12-6-1981. Resumed today. Parties advocates are present. Judgment is pronounced in open Court. Read and recorded. As per Ex. 14, appeal partly allowed. Order of sentence is hereby set aside and modified as follows : all accused who are relased after due admonition under Sec. 3 of the Act. Hence, case is disposed of. " ( 10 ) THERE appears to be a lot of substance in the submission made by mr. Baxi. Read and recorded. As per Ex. 14, appeal partly allowed. Order of sentence is hereby set aside and modified as follows : all accused who are relased after due admonition under Sec. 3 of the Act. Hence, case is disposed of. " ( 10 ) THERE appears to be a lot of substance in the submission made by mr. Baxi. It is true that though the outer glimpse on reading the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge one is tempted to believe that the accused persons were duly admonished under Sec. 3 of the Act, and that thereafter they were so released. But unfortunately on the closure scrutiny, in absence of any tangible evidence available on the record indicating actual act of admonition proceeding from the Court of the accused persons and accused persons in turn appreciating, understanding and ackowledging the said admonition on their respective parts, it is not possible at all to hold that the accused persons were legally and in letter and spirit were rightly released under Sec. 3 of the said Act. Indeed, there is nothing on the record to show as to how the accused were admonished ? What actually transpired between the Court and the accused in process of the admonition ? How court warned the accused ? How accused re-acted to it ? Whether warning from the Court in any way impressed the accused as to the consequences of repeating the offence ? What material surfaced after brief dialogue on admonition between Court and the accused satisfying the Court ultimately to resort to the release the accused on admonition ? Rather, it is clear from the Rojkam proceedings that the accused persons to whom admonition was to be administered before releasing they were not present before the Sessions court. If that is so, then the question that arises is where the power of admonition was exercised ? In vacuum ? It is under these circumstances, that this Court is called upon to answer (i) the correct import of the phrase "released him after due admonition"; and (ii) in what manner the said power of admonition under Sec. 3 of the said Act is to be exercised and executed? ( 11 ) ). What, therefore, is the correct import/meaning of the word admonition appearing in Sec. 3 of the said Act ? For this, let us first of all advert to sec. ( 11 ) ). What, therefore, is the correct import/meaning of the word admonition appearing in Sec. 3 of the said Act ? For this, let us first of all advert to sec. 3 of the said Act, which reads as under :"when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 379 or Sec. 380 or Sec. 381 or Sec. 404 or Sec. 420 of the Indian penal Code or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding contained in any other law for the time-being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under sec. 4 release him after due admonition. Explanation : For the purpose of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him this section or Sec. 4. " ( 12 ) THE word admonition appearing in Sec. 3 of the Act is not defined anywhere in any statute. It is derived from the old-French word admonere. In late Latin, the word admonere conveys the same meaning, "ad" means "to" and "monere" means to "warn". Meaning thereby, to warn; to reprove mildly-kind reproof. Further, in a case of State v. Ghanshamdas, reported in AIR 1955 Hyderabad, 263, it has been observed that "admonition by a Judge is a reprimand, a censure or reproof, warning the accused that he is being let-off, but in case of repetition, he will be punished severely in accordance with the law. " Thus, it is very clear that the word admonition has a definite meaning of warning the accused before being let off. " Thus, it is very clear that the word admonition has a definite meaning of warning the accused before being let off. Now as stated earlier, there is nothing on the record to show that the learned Sessions Judge in fact has in any way reprimanded or censured or warned the accused before they were ordered to be released after the said admonition, and obviously, such record could not have been there because rojkam does not show that at the time when the judgment and order of admonition was pronounced, the respondent-accused were kept present before the Court. Ordinarily, every Criminal Court is invested with (i) jurisdiction to try a particular case; and (ii) at the end of the trial to (a) record order of conviction for the proved offence; and (b) to pass necessary order or orders of substantive sentence and/or fine and in default further substantive sentence as the case may be. So far as the execution of the sentence part is concerned, it is left to the jail and other administrative authorities. admonition is perhaps the only exception where the Court is not only invested with the said power of admonition under Sec. 3 of the said Act, but a further duty is cast under the said section whereby the Court has to perform-exercise-execute the act of admonition to the accused. This can neither be delegated nor performed in vacuum as appears to have been done in the present case. ( 13 ) THUS, substance the net ratio that emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the said Sec. 3 of the Act can broadly be analysed and divided into three equally important stages/components. The first stage is the existence of imperative pre-requisites without which the Court cannot even think of exercising discretion of releasing the accused on admonition. Accordingly, first component/stage of Sec. 3 of the said Act provides guidelines as to when and under what circumstances the discretion to release the accused on admonition can be exercised. The first stage is the existence of imperative pre-requisites without which the Court cannot even think of exercising discretion of releasing the accused on admonition. Accordingly, first component/stage of Sec. 3 of the said Act provides guidelines as to when and under what circumstances the discretion to release the accused on admonition can be exercised. It says that whenever any accused prays for being released on admonition or whenever the Court itself of its own deems it just, proper and expedient to take a lenient view of the matter by instead of sending the accused either to jail or to make him to pay fine or release him on probation of good conduct under Sec. 4 of the said act, the concerned Court has first of all to satisfy itself whether the following prerequisites duly existed or not viz. either (i) a person is found guilty of having committed offences under Sec. 379 or Sec. 380 or Sec. 381 or Sec. 404 or Sec. 420 of the I. P. C. ; (ii) that any other offences punishable with the imprisonment for not more than two years or with fine, or with both under the I. P. C. or any other law; (iii) that any previous conviction is proved against him; (iv) further the Court by which the person is found guilty is of the opinion that having regard to the facts of the case including the character of the offender it is expedient to exercise a discretionary power of releasing the accused on admonition. ( 14 ) ). The second stage consists of how (?) that is to say, in what manner the discretion of admonition is to be reflected in the actual act of admonition by the Court. Thus, the second stage is regarding actual exercise, execution or administering the admonition by a Court to the accused. This act of admonition is aimed at parting lesson to the accused at the end of the trial with a word of warning not to repeat the alleged or similar other offence in the future as the same could entail and visit with a severe and stringent punishments. This act of admonition is aimed at parting lesson to the accused at the end of the trial with a word of warning not to repeat the alleged or similar other offence in the future as the same could entail and visit with a severe and stringent punishments. Now this objective can best to realised by the Court if while administering admonition, its efforts are directed with the touch of soft, gentle and loving language of love and persuasion capable enough of winning the confidence and love of the accused and at the same time sufficiently hard enough to lay imprint on the mind of the accused to appreciate and understand the meaning of the crime he committed, the resultant effect of the degeneration and sending him to a jail in the event of the same being repeated in future. In short, admonition is a sort of a promise proceeding from the court to the accused of not sending him to the jail if he in turn shows sincere repentance for the crime committed by him and gives return promise to the Court that in future he will behave well and will not commit the said offence. Thus, ultimately when the accused is made to realise by the court that he had committed a crime, that he has been rightly convicted, that he should repent for the same and that thereafter only he could be lightly let off without any punishment being inflicted upon him and the accused in his turn assuring the Court that he will not repeat the same or similar offences in the future, the meaningful act of administering admonition can be said to have been performed. ( 15 ) ). Further, whenever a Court decides to grant admonition to any accused, then in that case, the record must positively reflect : (i) that the accused was present before the Court, and (ii) that Court had in fact administered an admonition and warned the accused in the manner suggested hereinabove i. e. reflecting what transpired between the Court and the accused in the judgment. ( 16 ) THE third and the final stage consists of actually releasing the accused after administering admonition in the light of the discussion made hereinabove. ( 16 ) THE third and the final stage consists of actually releasing the accused after administering admonition in the light of the discussion made hereinabove. When the Court administers the admonition to the offender in the manner discussed hereinabove, it tries to bring awareness in the accused regarding the futility of offence and the consequential risk of severe punishment if the alleged offence is repeated in future. It is this light of awareness and repentance of the accused which immunizes him from commission of offences in future. ( 17 ) COMING back to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is very clear that the accused are released on admonition by the learned sessions Judge without following the necessary requirements, as discussed hereinabove. ( 18 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, it has got to be held that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is on the face of it non est and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. Ordinarily, under the circumstances like the instant one, the learned Sessions Judge could have been directed to admonish the accused by re-calling them in the light of the discussion held out hereinabove. Even this Court could as well have done the same thing by re-calling the accused for administering admonition, but then having regard to the facts that the alleged offence took place back in the year 1979, after ten years, it is not that worthwhile to waste public time for doing the same. ( 19 ) IN the result, this Revision Application fails and is dismissed to the extent that there is no case made out for granting the prayer of the applicant to restore the order of sentence passed by the trial Court against each of the accused. Rule discharged to the said extent. .