Judgment S. C. MITAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of the order dt. 16-3-1986 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Cr. Case No. 310/84 under Section 42 of the Forest Act, 1927 whereby the respondent No. 1 Hari Dass made confession of the guilt and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- along with co-accused respondent No. 2 Mohd. Haneef. The impugned order shows that respondent No. 1 Hari Dass made confession of the offence under Section 42 of the Forest Act on behalf of other co-accused respondent No. 2 Mohd Haneef. The fine of Rs. 150/- was deposited by respondent No. 1 Haridass. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. It is argued on behalf of the State that no accused person can confess the guilt on behalf of other co-accused, therefore, the confession of guilt by respondent No. 1 Hari Dass on behalf of respondent No. 2 Mohd. Haneef is illegal and by the Court to hold conviction of Shri Mohd. Haneef cannot be accepted. It is further argued that there is no provision in law to impose fine jointly on the accused persons. The fine should be imposed separately against each accused and, therefore, the impugned order is also illegal on account of imposing fine of Rs. 150/- jointly against the respondent. It is, therefore, submitted that the case may be remanded to the concerned Court for retrial. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the proceedings were conducted under Lok-Adalat and respondent No. 1 Hari Dass voluntarily made confession and the matter was disposed of by accepting and the confession of the guilt and fine was imposed on the respondents which was deposited by respondent No. 1. Hari Dass. It is argued that there does not appear to be such illegality or irregularity that the case may be remanded for retrial. It is further argued that the incident took place on 21-5-1984 and even if there is any procedure adopted against the law, then the proceedings may be dropped against respondents now in the interest of justice and the case should not be remanded for trial. The learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State opposes this contention. It is further argued that the incident took place on 21-5-1984 and even if there is any procedure adopted against the law, then the proceedings may be dropped against respondents now in the interest of justice and the case should not be remanded for trial. The learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State opposes this contention. ( 4 ) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by both the learned counsel for the parties. It may be clearly stated that procedure adopted by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra is illegal for two reasons : firstly that the respondent No. 1 could not confess on behalf of other co-accused, therefore, his confession on behalf of Mohd. Haneef could not be accepted by the Court for holding conviction against respondent No. 2. Secondly, each accused should be fined separately. A sentence of fine to be paid jointly by several accused persons cannot be passed and it is, therefore, clearly illegal. The learned counsel for the respondents have argued that offence against the respondents is compounable under Section 68 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, but this fact does not in any manner cure the above illegalities committed in the trial of the case. ( 5 ) THE impugned order dt. 16-3-1986 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Almost 10 years have elapsed from the date of the occurrence and it will not be just and proper at this stage now to remand the case for trial and the proceedings should be terminated finally. ( 6 ) IN view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dt. 16-3-1986 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra is hereby set aside. However, for the reasons mentioned above, it is not proper to remand the case and the proceedings are terminated against the respondents. Petition allowed. .