JUDGMENT: Respondent is Accused in C.C.No 555 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur, North Arcot District. For cutting 33 pellets of Sandalwood weighing 25 kgs (on 20.7.1994 at 5.30 a.m. in Singarapettai Reserve Forest worth Rs.5,575, the respondent/ accused was convicted under Sec.21(d), (e) and (f), of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.The respondent/ accused admitted the offence. On such admission of plea of guilt, the accused was ordered to be released under Secs.4(1) and 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Under Sec.5(1)(b) of the Act, the accused was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.700. 2. Aggrieved over releasing of the accused invoking the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, the State has come forward with this appeal. The facts are not disputed. On 20.7.1994, when P.Ws.1 and 2 and other Forest Officers were on duty, keeping watch in Singarapettai Reserve Forest, the accused was found to be carrying sandalwood . When being questioned and searched, the accused was found to be in possession of head load of 33 pellets of sandalwood and he admitted cutting of the trees. For the commission of the offence under Sec.21(d), (e), (f), of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. 3. During trial, to substantiate the charge, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. Some of the witnesses were cross-examined. After completion of the trial, the accused was also questioned under Sec.313(1)(b) of the Crl.P.C. The acussed had denied all of them and had also stated that he has defence witnesses to examine on the defence side. At that stage, the respondent/accused filed a petition admitting his guilt and pleaded for mercy. The trial Court accepted the petition admitting the guilt. The trial Magistrate called for report from the Probationary Officer who gave the report stating about the family back-ground and permanent residence of the accused. Pointing out the plea of mercy pleaded by the accused even during questioning under Sec.248(2), Crl.P.C. and his answer viz., the trial Magistrate ordered the accused to be released under 4(1) and 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed the acussed to remain under the supervision of the Officer for a period of one year. 4. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.21 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act provides the punishment which may be awarded to a person found guilty of the forest offences relating to Scheduled Timber. 4. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.21 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act provides the punishment which may be awarded to a person found guilty of the forest offences relating to Scheduled Timber. Sec.21(1) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act stipulates: (1) in any case where any of the acts aforesaid relates to any Scheduled Timber with imprisonment for a term which may extend to (five years) and with fine which may extend to (twenty thousand rupees). Proviso to Sec.21(1) Tamil Nadu Forest Act provides for the minimum sentence. Proviso to Sec.21(1) reads thus: (a) for a first offence, the term of such imprisonment shall not be less than (two years) and such shall not be less than (seven thousand five hundred rupees); (b) for a second or subsequent offence the term of such punishment shall not be less than (three years) and such fine shall not be less than (fifteen thousand rupees) (Bold added). 5. The question that now arises for determination is whether despite a minimum sentence of imprisonment of two years is provided and miminum fine amount of Rs.7,500 has been prescribed by the Legislature and, when a person is found guilty in relating to any Schedule Timber, can the Court resort to the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act? 6. State is represented by Mr.I.Subramanian, State Public Prosecutor and the Government Advocate Mr.A.N.Thambidurai. By careful assortment of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, Tamil Nadu Forest Act, in his meticulous arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor inter alia advanced the following submissions: (i) This appeal being one preferred against the inadequacy of sentence for enhancement on which appeal shall ordinarily lie only to the High Court and hence the appeal is maintainable under Sec.11(2) of Probation of Offenders Act. In any event, the High Court could exercise its power of revision under Sec.11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act or Sec.401, Crl.P.C.; (ii) When Tamil Nadu Forest Act provides for minimum punishment, Courts are not justified in invoking the benevolent provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. According to Public Prosecutor, though in the instant case there is no wrongful exercise of discretion, warranting interference; and, (iii) Instances where the Courts have dissuaded to exercise the operation of the Probation of Offenders Act having regard to the nature of the offence and its effect on the society. According to Public Prosecutor, though in the instant case there is no wrongful exercise of discretion, warranting interference; and, (iii) Instances where the Courts have dissuaded to exercise the operation of the Probation of Offenders Act having regard to the nature of the offence and its effect on the society. Taking me through the report of the Probationary Officer in this case, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in his view there is no wrongful exercise of discretion in the instant case. 7. In his elaborate arguments, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon a number of decisions in support of his contention that there is no bar for invoking the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in forest cases. The learned counsel has inter alia raised the following contentions (i) Under Sec.11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, appeal shall lie only to the Court of session; when under Sec.374, Crl.P.C hierarchy of appellate forums are provided, the appeal filed in the High Court in contravention to Sec.11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act and the appeal is not maintainable; (ii) Not-withstanding the minimum sentence of imprisonment prescribed by the Legislature in Tamil Nadu Forest Act, there is no reason for not invoking the Probation of Offenders Act unless specifically barred; (iii) Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, under Sec.20(AA), where there is specific bar for extending the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act under Sec.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When there is no such specific bar in Tamil Nadu Forest Act, there is no bar for extending the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act; and, (iv) Instances of Etti Gounder v. The Forest Range Officer, Namakkal 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 68 and Andiappan v. The State by the Forest Range Officer, Burgur, 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 325, where this Court has invoked the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the offence under Tamil Nadu Forest Act. 8.Maintainability of the appeal: Pointing out Sec.11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act, on behalf of the accused, much arguments are advanced on the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the State. 9. Sec.11 of the Probation of Offenders Act deals with Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of Court in appeal and revision. Sec.11(2) stipulates the Courts to which appeal shall lie. Sec.11(2) reads as follows: 11(2). 9. Sec.11 of the Probation of Offenders Act deals with Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of Court in appeal and revision. Sec.11(2) stipulates the Courts to which appeal shall lie. Sec.11(2) reads as follows: 11(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, where an order under Sec.3 or Sec.4 is made by any Court trying the offender (other than a High Court), an appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former Court. 10. Thus the expression, “... an appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former Court” are emphatic. Had the appeal been preferred by the accused, that appeal ought to have been preferred only before the Court of Session. But this appeal preferred by the State is for setting aside the order of release of the accused under Secs.4(1) and 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act and praying for imposition of minimum sentence, implying that the appeal is for enhancement of sentence. 11. The learned counsel submitted as against an order made under Sec.3 or Sec.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.11 of Probation of Offenders Act, an appeal shall lie only to the Court of Session to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former Court. Upon careful consideration of this contention in the light of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, this argument has no force and does not merit acceptance. 12. Sec.377, Crl.P.C. provides for an appeal to the High Court for enhancement of sentence in cases of inadequate sentence passed on conviction by any Court other than the High Court. Sec.377, Crl P.C., gives a right of appeal to the State Government. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.377, Crl.P.C., confers power on the State Government to file an appeal against inadequacy of sentence in all cases including two types of cases mentioned in Sub-sec.(2). In this case, while convicting the accused, the trial Court ordered the release of the accused under the Probation of Offenders Act. The present appeal is filed for enhancement of sentence,which appeal is maintainable only before the High Court, the present appeal is filed. In this case, while convicting the accused, the trial Court ordered the release of the accused under the Probation of Offenders Act. The present appeal is filed for enhancement of sentence,which appeal is maintainable only before the High Court, the present appeal is filed. The High Court being the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie for enhancement of sentences, the appeal filed in the Court is proper and well in accordance with Sec.11(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 13. In any event, under Sec.11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act, in exercise of its power of revision, the High Court may set aside such an order and in lieu thereof, pass sentence on such offender, according to law. We may usefully refer to Sec.11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act, which runs as follows: When an order has been made under Sec.3 or Sec.4 in respect of an offender, the Appellate Court or the High Court in the exercise of its power of revision may set aside such order and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law: Provided that the Appellate Court or the High Court in revision shall not inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was found guilty. 14. Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is very extensive. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, there is no form of injustice which the High Court cannot reach for correcting it. Secs.397-398, Crl.P.C. provide the machinery by which the records are called for and revisional matters come before the High Court. While Sec.401, Crl.P.C., gives the power of disposal to the High Court. The object in conferring power under Sec.401, Crl.P.C. is to confer a supervisory jurisdiction upon the High Court in order to correct miscarriage of justice, arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, wrongful exercise of discretion resulting in pervese order. 15. High Court’s power to enhance sentence in revisional jurisdiction is vested in it under Sec. 401 read with Sec.397, Crl.P.C. like its power to exercise revisional jurisdiction in case of an acquittal. Despite the provision for appeal against inadequacy of sentence conferred on the State by Sec.377 of new Code, revisional jurisdiction of High Court to act suo motu forenhancement of sentence remains in tact under Sec.11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Despite the provision for appeal against inadequacy of sentence conferred on the State by Sec.377 of new Code, revisional jurisdiction of High Court to act suo motu forenhancement of sentence remains in tact under Sec.11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act. Since the revisional power is exercisable through whatever channel the matter is brought to the notice, the High Court has the power to enhance sentence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec.11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act. In my considered view, the appeal is well maintainable in this Court. If not as an appeal, the same could be treated as a revision under Sec. 11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act to hear the contentious points to appreciate the correctness of the order. 16.Invoking of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, where the minimum sentence is provided for: Sec.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act empowers the Court to release the convicted person on his entering into a bond when the person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. But the provision is saddled with certain conditions for invoking the reliefs thereunder. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act reads thus: "When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or with- out sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour." 17. By the words so couched in the sub-section Parliament has taken care to emphasize that before the relief (envisaged in the provision) is granted Court must take into account the circum-stances of the case, among which "the nature of the offence and the character of the offender" must have overriding considerations. By the words so couched in the sub-section Parliament has taken care to emphasize that before the relief (envisaged in the provision) is granted Court must take into account the circum-stances of the case, among which "the nature of the offence and the character of the offender" must have overriding considerations. After bestowing judicial consideration on those factors, the Court must form an opinion as to whether it would be appropriate in that case to release the particular accused therein as envisaged in the sub-section. 18. Probation of Offenders Act is the recognition of doctrine that the objects of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than punish him. The Act distinguishes the offenders below 21 years of age and those above that age and offenders who are guilty of having committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of lesser offence. By a reading of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 of the Act, it is clear that it makes no distinction between persons of age of more than 21 years and those of the age less than 21 years. On the contrary, Sec.4(1) is applicable to all ages subject to certain conditions which have been specified theron. 19. On analysing the scheme of the Probation of Offenders Act and other Acts, where the operation of Probation of Offenders Act is excluded, we may categorise them into three classes of instances: (a) Firstly, under the scheme of Act, even under Sec.18 of the Probation of Offenders Act, operation of certain enactments are saved, as stated in Sec.18, which is as under: "Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Sec.31 of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 (8 of 1897), or Sub-sec (2) of Sec.5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) or of any law in force in any State relating to juvenile offenders or Borstal schools. (b) Secondly, certain special enactments barring application of Probation of Offenders Act and Sec.360 of Crl.P.C. For instance, we may refer to Sec.20-AA, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sec.33 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (b) Secondly, certain special enactments barring application of Probation of Offenders Act and Sec.360 of Crl.P.C. For instance, we may refer to Sec.20-AA, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sec.33 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Sec.20-AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads as follows: “Nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) or Sec.360 of the Code of Criminal Proce-dure,1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age”. Sec.33 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is on similar line as that of Sec.20-AA of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. (c) The third instance if there is no such power for invoking the Probation of Offenders Act, having regard to the nature of the offence and its effects on the society, the Courts restricting the operation of application of Probation of Offenders Act. 20. On par with the Prevention of Food Adul- teration Act, and the Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act, there is no specific bar in Tamil Nadu Forest Act. Therefore, on behalf of the accused, it is mainly contended that when the application of Probation of Offenders Act is not specifically barred under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, ther could be no bar for extending the benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, even in cases of possession of Sandalwood/Scheduled timber for which the minimum punishment is prescibed for. In support of his contention that there is no bar for invoking the Probation of Offenders Act to the offences under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the learned counsel for the respondent accused relied on two decisions: (i)Etti Gounder v. The Forest Range Officer, Namakkal, 1985 L.W. (Crl).68; (ii) Andiappan and others v. The State by the Forest Range Officer, Burgur, 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 325. On the above decisions, it is submitted that when the single Judges of this Court have invoked the Probation of Offenders Act in the appeals/revisions arising out of conviction for the alleged possession of sandalwood, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in invoking the Probation of Offenders Act. 21. Of course, on line with Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, there is no specific bar in Tamil Nadu Forest Act on the application of Probation of Offenders Act. 21. Of course, on line with Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, there is no specific bar in Tamil Nadu Forest Act on the application of Probation of Offenders Act. On that ground no body could claim the benefit of Secs.3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for the offences where the Legislature has provided for the minimum sentence. Only in fair exercise of discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case of each case, having regard to the nature of the offences, its general effect on the society and the character of the offender, etc., it could be invoked. 22. In those above decisions, the learned single Judges of this Court might have invoked the Probation of Offenders Act having regard to the age, character of the offender and other circumstances, the details of which are not discernible from the available facts in the reported decisions. Suffice it to point out that the learned single Judges have invoked the Probation of Offenders Act in exercise of discretion in the factual situation of those cases. The same cannot be adopted as precedence in all the cases. The benefits mentioned in Secs.3 and 4 are subject to the limitations laid down in those provisions and that the word ‘may’ in Sec.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is not to be understood as ‘must’. 23. Instances are many when having regard to the nature of the offence, the Supreme Court has declined to extend the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act. Offences of rash and negligent driving under Sec.304-A, I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Thus the offence of rash and negligent driving is clearly an offence, “... not punishable with death or imprisonment for life ...”, as contemplated in Sec.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act thus falling within the ambit of Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders Act. But having regard to the nature of the offence and increasing trend of negligent driving, the Supreme Court has declined to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in road traffic accident cases. In Dalbir Singh v. Stata of Haryana and others, A.I.R.. But having regard to the nature of the offence and increasing trend of negligent driving, the Supreme Court has declined to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in road traffic accident cases. In Dalbir Singh v. Stata of Haryana and others, A.I.R.. 2000 S.C. 1677, the Supreme Court has held that the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act should not normally be extended in respect of the offences under Sec.304-A, I.P.C., when it involves rash and negligent driving. The Supreme Court has made it clear that Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders Act could be resorted to only when the Court considers the circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the offence and the Court forms its opinion that it is proper that the offender could be released under probation of good conduct. 24. It is appropriate to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court dissuaded from invoking the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act to the offences under Sec.304-A, I.P.C. 7. The conditions for applying Sec.4 of the P.O.Act have been delineated in the commencing portion of the provisions in the following words: “when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct...” 8. Parliament made it clear that only if the Court forms the opinion that it is expedient to release him on probation for his good conduct regard being had to the circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which cannot be sidelined in forming the said opinion is “the nature of the offence”. 9. Thus Parliament has left it to the Court to decide when and how the Court should form such opinion. It provided sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient. The word “expedient” had been thoughtfully employed by the Parliament in the section so as to mean it as “apt and suitable to theend in view”. 10. It provided sufficient indication that releasing the convicted person on probation of good conduct must appear to the Court to be expedient. The word “expedient” had been thoughtfully employed by the Parliament in the section so as to mean it as “apt and suitable to theend in view”. 10. it was then held that the Court must construe the said word in keeping with the context and object of the provision in its widest amplitude. Here the word “expedient” is used in Sec.4 of the P.O. Act in the context of casting a duty on the Court to take into account “the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence . . ...”This means Sec.4 can be resorted to when the Court considers the circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the offence and the Court forms its opinion that it is suitable and appropriate for accomplishing a specified object that the offender can be released on probation of good conduct“. 25. Considering the increasing trend of negligent driving, when the Supreme Court has declined to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in road traffic accident cases, can Sec.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act be invoked to an offence under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, where there is increasing trend of cutting and removing of trees, particularly the Scheduled Timber, where the minimum sentence is provided for? 26. In the proviso to Sec.21(1) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the Legislature has used the expression,”shall not be less than (two years) ...... and shall not be less than (Seven thousand and five hundred rupees). Thus the Legislature in its wisdom has disfavoured the sentence to any less than the minimum limit and the fine than the minimum prescribed. The expression “shall not be less than ....”is pre-emptory in tone. In such cases where the minimum sentence is provided for, normally,. this Court has no discretion even to award a sentence less than the minimum prescribed sentence. While so, how could the same be by-passed by resorting to the Probation of Offenders Act when the offenders are bent upon cutting and removing trees unmindful of the depletion of forest resources/wealth. 27. Forest Resources/Wealth of State and Mankind: With the population explosion and depletion of forest land to provide for agriculture and like Social Forestry are aimed at this goal. 28. 27. Forest Resources/Wealth of State and Mankind: With the population explosion and depletion of forest land to provide for agriculture and like Social Forestry are aimed at this goal. 28. Trees can exist without man but man cannot exist without trees. It is an axiom today that forests and wild life are essential for man’s survival on the earth. Though we have projects for tree planting in all our functions, ...... we fail in the areas of sustained maintenance of the initiated projects and protection of the existing trees. Mere awareness without action to prevent is useless. Forest cover in the State and in the country had been shrinking alarmingly due to various reasons particularly, illegal cutting and removing. 29. Bearing in mind the object of protection of trees and various forest resources, the Legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to provide for a minimum sentence. Courts are under obligation to share the parliamentary concern. Courts cannot be oblivious of the depletion of vast area of forest. In fact, great is the Judicial Activism of the Higher Judiciary in protecting the Forests, preventing the depletion and protection of the environment. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein are for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith. While dealing with various cases, relating to forests in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India,(1997)2 S.C.C.267, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines to Tamil Nadu Government prohibiting felling of trees and other directions. When such is the concern of the Apex Court, the lower Courts are duty bound to share the consciousness of protection of forest and environment. The lower Courts, particularly, the Courts which are dealing with offences arising under Tamil Nadu Forest Act cannot be oblivious of the depletion of the vast area of forest resources and their obligation to share the parliamentry concern and the concern of the Apex Court. in the sphere of protection of forest and preservationof ecology and environment absolutely there could be no room for leniency. 30. In the offences arising under the Forest Act, it is mandatory to impose the appropriate sentence or at atleast the minimum sentence prescribed in the Forest Act. in the sphere of protection of forest and preservationof ecology and environment absolutely there could be no room for leniency. 30. In the offences arising under the Forest Act, it is mandatory to impose the appropriate sentence or at atleast the minimum sentence prescribed in the Forest Act. The sentencing Court has there fore to approach the question seriously and make a endeavour to see that no leniency is shown to the offenders. 31.Criminal Justice System is no longer just an individualistic view, functioning in isolation from the society. The Criminal Courts must properly respond to the social problems of society particularly in the area of protection of forest and environment. Need to rise up to the occasion has become great and imperative when the forest cover is shrinking. 32. Reported cases of offences relating to Scheduled Timber have to be sternly dealt with, with a steel heart, not yielding to any plea of softness on any ground as in this case, where the trial Magistrate has casually invoked the Probation of Offenders Act on the flimsy grounds that the accused is poor and a first offender. To follow popular line of showing indulgence is not very difficult. In fact, it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so; rather than to adhere to nail-studded path of duty, institutional perspective and responsibility towards the society. It is high time that the Judicial Officers realise that the Court cannot adopt a lenient view with the offences relating to Scheduled Timber and showing indulgence are not to be allowed. Courts are to rise up to the occasion in sharing the concern of the Legislature, lest, Criminal Courts would be failing in their duty. 33. In the case on hand, the accused is alleged to have removed 25 kgs of Sandalwood worth Rs.5,575. It is to be noted that in the initial stage of trial, the accused denied the charges and contested the case. Only after his questioning under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., was completed and after taking an adjournment for examining defence witness, the accused filed a petition, admitting the offence. Thereafter, on such filing of petition, admitting the plea of guilt, the report of the Probationary Officer was called for. Only after his questioning under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., was completed and after taking an adjournment for examining defence witness, the accused filed a petition, admitting the offence. Thereafter, on such filing of petition, admitting the plea of guilt, the report of the Probationary Officer was called for. Like in any other case, the Probationary Officer filed a favourable report relating to the family background and that the accused is a first offender and that there are chances of his being reformed. On the basis of the report of the Probationary Officer, the Trial Magistrate proceeded to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act. The provisions of Probation of Offenders Act appears to have been invoked mainly on the grounds that: (i) the accused had admitted the offence; (ii) the accused is poor;(iii) the accused has no criminal antecedent. 34. Taking me through the report of the Probationary Officer, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in his view, in the instant case, there is no wrongful exercise of discretion. This Court is of the view that the learned Public Prosecutor in fairness has made such submissions. On going through the materials on record, this Court is of the view that in the instant case there is no proper exercise of discretion. It is not as if the accused admitted the offence at the first instance. But he hotly contested the case. During his questioning under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, the respondent/accused has denied the incriminating evidence. The accused had taken adjournments for examination of defence witnesses. It was at this stage, the accused filed the petition admitting offence and praying for leniency. Considering the conduct of the respondent/accused, this Court is of the view that the trial Magistrate was not right in extending the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act that too at that fag end of the trial, accepting the admission petition. 35. Invoking the Probation of Offenders Act in offences relating to Tamil Nadu Forest Act couldhave deleterious effect of polluting the Criminal Justice System. It might subvert the process of law and frustrating the social objective and purpose behind the Forest Act. In a case of “plea-bargaining”, the Supreme Court has discouraged the short circuiting of the hearing of the cases involving serious offences. It is appropriate to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika, A.I.R..2000 S.C. 164. In a case of “plea-bargaining”, the Supreme Court has discouraged the short circuiting of the hearing of the cases involving serious offences. It is appropriate to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika, A.I.R..2000 S.C. 164. “.....This practice would also tend to encourage corruption and collusion and as a direct consequence, contribute to the lowering of the standard of justice...” Invoking of the Probation of Offenders Act in offences relating to Forest Act might also tend to encourage corruption and collusion. 36. No parameters could be fixed for invoking the Probation of Offenders Act As said earlier, Criminal Justice System is no longer just an individualistic view or opinion functioning in isolation from the society. There is no doubt that releasing the accused under Sec.4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act is against the letter and spirit of the Legislature. The impugned judgment of the trial Court needs to be set aside. The conviction of the respondent /accused under Sec.21(d), (e), (f) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the direction of trial Magistrate in ordering the release of the accused under Secs.4(1) and 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act are set aside. Minimum fine amount of Rs.7,500 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) is imposed upon the respondent/accused in default the respondent/accused should undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In view of the following factual situation of the case, this Court dissuades from imposing the minimum sentence of imprisonment since at this distant point of time, it would not be fit to direct the respondent/accused to serve the sentence. 37. C.A.No.406 of 1997: The conviction of the respondent/accused by Special Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur in C.C.No.555 of 1994, convicting him under Sec.21(e), (d), (f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act is confirmed. Direction of the trial Court ordering release of the respondent/accused under Secs.4(1) and 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act is set aside.For conviction under Sec.21 (e), (d), (f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the respondent/accused is ordered to pay fine of Rs.7,500 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 38. The trial Court is directed to take immediate appropriate steps for collecting the fine amount. Compliance in this regard has to be reported to this Court within six months. 39. 38. The trial Court is directed to take immediate appropriate steps for collecting the fine amount. Compliance in this regard has to be reported to this Court within six months. 39. Directions to the lower Courts: (i) Lower Courts are directed to see that in offences arising under Tamil Nadu Forest Act, particularly in offences relating to Scheduled timber, appropriate sentence, commensurate with the crime, visualized by the Law makers, is awarded; (ii) The lower Courts are further directed not to by-pass the imposition of minimum sentence by invoking the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act to Tamil Nadu Forest Act. (iii) Like wise, in other cases, where the Legislature has provided the minimum sentence, to see that proper sentence, commensurate with the crime committed by the accused, is required to be imposed. (iv) Any improper exercise of discretion in invoking Probation of Offenders Act inTamil Nadu Forest Act and in the other laws, where the minimum sentence is prescribed, would not lightly be viewed. 40. Recommendation to the State Government: Welfare State is under great obligation to protect the forest cover. It is high time that the State Government introduces appropriate provision, prohibiting the application of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Sec.360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to Tamil Nadu Forest Act on par with Sec.20(AA) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sec.33 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.