This is a revision application against an order of the S. D. O. Amber, dated 26.8.1953 imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- upon the applicants under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan (Removal of Trees) Ordinance, 1949. 2. We have heard the parties at length and have examined the record as well. As far as merits of the case are concerned the revision is without any substance. The prosecution has amply established by clear and convincing evidence that the applicants cut down trees without obtaining a license from a siwai chak land, (khasra numbers 25 and 33 (in village Jaislta, Tehsil Amber. The statements of Abdul Hamid Khan, Naib Tehsildar, Govind Narain, office quanun go, and Ghasi Khan Deel, leave no room to doubt that from khasra number 25, 40 trees were cut down. 250 Mds. wood was lying on the spot and about 50 Mds. was being transported away on camels back. In khasra number 25 as many as 45 pits and in khasra number 33 as many as 30 pits were counted on the spot which clearly suggest that at least 75 trees were removed away from these fields. The contention of the applicants is that trees were cut only from khasra number 29 which is in the pattedari of Chhitar Gujar, applicant. Permission was also obtained for removing trees from khasra number 29. This no doubt true but it does not mean any exoneration of the guilt of the applicants. It has been amply established that trees were removed not only from khasra number 29 but from khasra numbers 25 and 33 as well, which are siwai chak land. The permission obtained by Chhitar Gujar for cutting down trees from khasra number 29 is thus of no avail and it simply shows a design on his part to give a cloak of legality to his nefarious activities. Nanga, Khenwa and Nanu are the persons who had seen applicants, directing the cutting and removal of trees operations in their presence upon these khasra numbers. The applicants have not been able to offer any explanation what-so-ever for the existence of unmistakable signs of offence upon these khasra numbers in case they had not removed these trees. We, therefore, agree with the lower court in holding that all the applicants are responsible for cutting down trees in contravention of the Ordinance. 3. The applicants have not been able to offer any explanation what-so-ever for the existence of unmistakable signs of offence upon these khasra numbers in case they had not removed these trees. We, therefore, agree with the lower court in holding that all the applicants are responsible for cutting down trees in contravention of the Ordinance. 3. The sentence imposed by the lower court is, however, unjustifiable. The collective fine of Rs. 1000/- has been imposed upon all these four applicants. No. efforts have been made to apportion the blame upon each applicant individually and to impose a fine proportionately to the guilt, separately. Such a punishment is clearly open to objection for it is impossible to say as to what portion should be realised from each one of them. Following the principle laid down in A.I.R. 1938 Patna 271 we would apportion this fine between the various applicants keeping in view the extent of the mischief played by each one of them in the commission of the offence. The main responsibility evidently rests upon Chhitar Gujar, and Chhitar Mali and they should pay a fine of Rs. 450/- each. The part played by the other two applicants, Ramchander and Sheola, is a subservient one and the ends of justice would be adequately satisfied if they are fined Rs. 50/- each. We would, therefore, partly allow and partly disallow the revision, in as much as we would maintain conviction of the applicants but would distribute the fine imposed upon them by the lower court in the following manner. (a) Chhitar Gujar Rs. 450/- (b) Chhitar Mali Rs. 450/- (c) Ramchander Rs. 50/- (d) Sheola. Rs. 50/- Rs. 1000/- 4. The lower court be directed to take steps for the realisation of these fines accordingly.