JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. J.— This revision is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Simla, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act as well as the sentence of two months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on facts and I find that there is no case for interference by me. Since Mr, Goel raised a question regarding the application of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to give its benefit to the petitioner, I have decided to give a speaking judgment, 3. It is no doubt true that Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be kept in view while sentencing an accused after he has been found guilty. But it must be remembered that in case this provision has not been kept in view by the trial court, this can always be applied even by an appellate court or by a revisional court. The question which falls for decision, therefore, is whether in this case of illicit felling of trees, which is rampant in this State, the benefit of Section 360 or Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be given to the present petitioner or not. It may straightaway be noticed that the petitioner is not below 21 years of age. It may also be noticed that the allegations which stand proved against the petitioner are that he had cut ten Tosh trees from the preserved forest without any permit. It has to be remembered that the object of Section 33 of the Forest Act is to curb the mischief of illicit felling of trees and to preserve the ecological balance and the forest wealth in the interest of the nation. It is common knowledge that the whole nation to-day is working for the preservation of the forests which have been denuded of trees illicitly by various agencies. One should not forget that loss of trees in not only a loss of the forests but also of the nation which suffers ultimately through various calamities. In this view of the matter it is necessary that deterrent sentences are awarded so that others dare not carry on the mischief. 4. One should not forget that loss of trees in not only a loss of the forests but also of the nation which suffers ultimately through various calamities. In this view of the matter it is necessary that deterrent sentences are awarded so that others dare not carry on the mischief. 4. Before applying the provisions of Section 360 it is necessary to see the character of the offence and the circumstances in which the offence was committed in addition to taking into consideration the age, character, and antecedents of the offender. Taking into consideration all these facts I do not find it a fit case for the application of Section 360. The petitioner has been awarded imprisonment for two months only in respect of ten trees he had illicitly cut. The sentence is indeed light and though I am not giving a notice of enhancement of sentence, the courts must remember that the sentences in respect of illicit felling of trees by and large have to be deterrent ones. It has also to be borne in mind that though illicit felling of trees continues to be on a very large scale, the detection of the offenders has become very difficult and it is only sometimes that some persons are detected, I, therefore, find no force in the contention raised by the petitioner and the revision is dismissed in limine. Revision dismissed.