JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—-The State of Himachal Pradesh assails, by this appeal, the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, in Forest Case No. 9 of 1982/492 of 1932 decided on 15-11-1984 thereby acquitting the accused of an offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a complaint under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was filed against the accused for having illegally felled one pine tree of II-B Class in the demarcated protected forest, Samtana, C. No. 2E. The accused had promised to pay compensation but subsequently refused to do so. An extra-judicial confession was made by the accused in the presence of Shri Kanshi Ram, Forest Guard, Rakha, and two other witnesses for having cut the tree in question. Consequently, prosecution was launched in the Court of the trying Magistrate which ended in the aforesaid acquittal of the accused. 3. The prosecution witnesses have stated that on 27-6-1982 while on routine patrol duty in this protected forest, one pine tree of II-B Class was found felled without permission. Logs of the same were also lying at the spot. On investigation it was found that the tree was cut by the accused. A damage report, Ex. PA., was issued against the accused by P.W. 2 Onkar Chand. It is further alleged that the accused admitted having felled the tree in question and also signed the damage report. Signatures of two other witnesses also appear on Ex. PB on the reverse of Ex. PA. 4. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, submits that this procedure is applicable and further asserts that the accused has appended his signature on this document; execution of the same was done in the presence of the witnesses. When a reference was made to the fact that the marginal witnesses of this document have resiled from their statements, it was contended that the same is because they belong to the area of the accused so they are interested in the accused and that on material part thereof, their testimony was not impaired. 5. Shri J. R. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the accused, has submitted that the land of the accused abuts the land of the Government forest in question. 5. Shri J. R. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the accused, has submitted that the land of the accused abuts the land of the Government forest in question. The accused, he contends, cut the tree from his own land In any case, the learned counsel contends, it is a disputed question and the State should have demarcated the area in question before launching the prosecution against the accused. It is also contended by him that the land in question came to the share of the accused in the consolidation proceedings. 6. I have examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the record of the case. I see that the accused has appended his signature on Ex. PB admitting thereby the commission of the offence which is described on the other part of this document proved as Ex. PA. In case no offence was committed by the accused, there was no necessity, in the absence of any evidence of compulsion, for doing so. The only inference which can be drawn is that the accused appended his signature willingly after he had accepted the commission of the offence. The challenge of the learned counsel for the accused on this aspect of the case, therefore, is not tenable. Even if value to some extent is attached to these documents, it is clear from the file of this case that the private land and the Government forest in question is separated by boundary pillars (burjies). Obviously, keeping this fact in view, this tree has been cut from within the area which falls in the Government forest demarcated by the boundary pillars (burjies). This was in the knowledge of the accused. The contention of the accused that he got this tree in consolidation proceedings is of no consequence. The findings of the trying Magistrate are, therefore, quite unreasonable and could not have been recorded in view of the cogent and convincing evidence led by the prosecution. 7. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed and the accused is convicted for offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 8. The findings of the trying Magistrate are, therefore, quite unreasonable and could not have been recorded in view of the cogent and convincing evidence led by the prosecution. 7. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed and the accused is convicted for offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 8. Shri M. S Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, submits that the accused deserves to be given exemplary punishment as illicit felling of trees in the State has done immense loss to the forest wealth as well as to the ecology thereby not only affecting the State but also the whole nation. This submission has a substance. However, looking to the fact that the accused is the first offender and only one pine tree is in question, therefore, punishment of fine would meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, order the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Order accordingly.