( 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. 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 effo