JUDGMENT V.K Mehrotra, J.—Respondent Devi Saran was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohru, District Simla, on June 5, 1984 for an offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 400. 2 The prosecution case, which was accepted by the learned Magistrate, was that respondent Devi Saran had illegally cut away two Deodar trees which was discovered by the Forest Guard on November 18, 1982. Devi Saran had confessed to his guilt and had also signed a damage report Ex. PA. The learned Magistrate discussed the evidence adduced before him by the prosecution as also on behalf of Devi Saran. 3. Devi Saran assailed the order of his conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 84-S/10of 1984. This appeal was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simla, who allowed it and acquitted Devi Saran This was on November 10, 1984. The learned Judge was of the opinion that, inasmuch as, the accused-respondent had given an offer to pay the compensation for the trees which had been cut away by him and this offer was accepted by the Forest Department, the offence stood compounded. According to the learned Judge it was immaterial that the Forest Department failed to recover the amount of compensation which the appellant had agreed to pay. 4. The reason which appealed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for recording the order of acquittal is not sound in law. The composition of the offence, as envisaged by section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, can only take effect when the sum of money determined as compensation for the offence by the Forest Officer, empowered in that behalf, is actually paid by the person proceeded against. Admittedly, in the present case, no such payment had taken place. The order of acquittal founded upon this ground cannot be sustained. The fact, however, remains that the alleged offence of cutting away the trees took place several years back Even the learned Magistrate had chosen to award a sentence of simple imprisonment of three months with a fine of Rs. 400. The evidence on the record of the case clearly establishes the guilt of Devi Saran. The learned Magistrate was, undoubtedly, right in recording an order of conviction which deserves to be upheld by this Court in the present appeal. 400. The evidence on the record of the case clearly establishes the guilt of Devi Saran. The learned Magistrate was, undoubtedly, right in recording an order of conviction which deserves to be upheld by this Court in the present appeal. However, having regard to the long time which has elapsed since the commission of the offence, it would not be a fit case where the respondent Devi Saran deserves to be sent to jail. 5. The appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal dated December 10 1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simla is set aside and that of the trial Magistrate dated June 5, 1984, is restored with the modification that the respondent shall suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a sum of Rs. 400 by way of fine. He is allowed two weeks time, as prayed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, for depositing the fine in the trial Court. In case the fine is not deposited within the time allowed, the respondent will suffer a weeks simple imprisonment. Appeal allowed. -