M.R.Verma, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16.1.1995, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, whereby in Criminal Appeal No.31-N/10 of 1994/1993 while maintaining die conviction of the accused respondents (here-in-after referred to as accused) for the commission of offence punishable under Section 38® of the Indian Penal Code the sentence awarded to the accused to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sinnaur at Nahan, has been substituted by release of the accused after due admonition.

2. Case of die prosecution, m brief, is that accused Ishwar Dass owned a cow which on turning dry was sold by him to PW-1 Harnam Dass for consideration in the sum of Rs. 1000/- on 9.11.1990. PW Harnam Dass took proper care of the cow and got it artificially inseminated with the result that the cow delivered a calf in the year 1991. After about a month of the delivery of the calf the accused went to the house of PW Harnam Dass and stealthily removed the cow and its calf there from in the absence of PW Harnam Dass and without the knowledge of his PW -4 Daropti. The accused were seen by one PW-2 Sunder Singh taking the cow and calf to their house. He went to the house of PW Harnam Dass and informed his wife PW Daropti about the taking of the cow by the accused to their house. PW Harnam Dass was informed of the theft of the cow and the calf by his younger brother Het Ram. On receipt of the information PW Hamam Dass went to the Police Station Pachhad where on the basis of his version about the theft of the cow F.I.R. Ext. PA was registered during investigation the cow and the calf were taken in possession by the police and was handedover on Spurdari to Hamam Dass vide Ext. PB On being satisfied with the commission of offence under Section 380 IPC by the accused, the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who at the trial found the accused guilty of the Commission of an offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and accordingly convicted them and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 500/-.

3. Feeling aggrieved the accused preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge who delivered the impugned judgment whereby the conviction of the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 380 IPC was maintained but sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded to them were substituted by release of the accused after due admonition. It is against the aforesaid background that the present appeal has been preferred by the State.

4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused/respondents and have gone through the records. The only contention which has been raised for the appellant in this appeal is that the lower appellate Court has committed a grave error by releasing the accused persons after admonition which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

5. At the very outset it may be pointed out that under the Criminal Jurisprudence the object of awarding punishment to a person who is guilty of the commission of an offence is prevention of the crime and the punishment is intended to prevent the person who has committed a crime from repeating the Act and also intended to prevent others from committing similar crimes by taking a lesson from the fate of the punished accused. With the emergence of new conception about dealing with the delinquents and criminals in a manner so as to reform them and to give them a chance to reform themselves, the Probation of Offenders Act was enacted by Parliament The said Act shift emphasis from deterrence to reformation and from the crime to the criminal as per the modem concept of punishment Reformation and rehabilitation of the offenders are the objections of the provisions regardin