JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. The accused in the case have been convicted under section 32 of the Indian Forest Act (Act No VII of 1878) for having cut down some reserved trees, and also under section 447 of the Penal Code, 1860 for committing criminal trespass in respect of forest land. The criminal trespass is said to have been committed by reason of the accused having entered on forest land for the purpose of cutting the trees. The learned Sessions Judge, who has referred this case under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is of opinion that the offence under section 32 of the Indian Forest Act must be held to include the offence of criminal trespass, and that therefore the conviction under section 447 is illegal. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge. No trees can be felled without going on the land on which they stand, and by going on the land for that purpose the offender who cuts down the trees does an act which is included in the main offence of felling the trees. Of course if he only trespasses on the land and does not cut any tree he would be guilty under section 447, or even if he cuts down the trees he might be convicted under the latter section. But he could not be convicted both for cutting down the trees and for going on the land. The former offence necessarily includes the latter. The conviction under section 447 of the Penal Code, 1860 was, therefore, illegal. I accordingly set it aside, and direct that the fines imposed under that section if paid be refunded.