JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This appeal by the State is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, in Case No. 39-III-99, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that due to illicit felling in the area the villagers had started patrolling of the area to prevent such illicit felling. On 24.7.1998 while such patrolling was being conducted by Pran Mohan, Sita Ram, Vinod Kumar, etc accused Rehmat Ali was apprehended near the cremation ground at about 2.00 p.m. He was at that time stated to be carrying two logs of Khair. He tried to run away but was caught. In the meanwhile, the other accused also came there carrying logs but they managed to flee from the spot. According to the prosecution, Rehmat Ali admitted his offence in the presence of the persons who apprehended him. He also gave an assurance that he would settle the matter and pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation and therefore, he was released. The complainant went off to attend a marriage and came back only on 7.9.1998 and then lodged the F.I.R. Ext.PW-1/A. Thereafter the case against the accused was investigated and tried. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 3. Admittedly, there is delay of 14 days in lodging the F.I.R. The incident is stated to have taken place on 24.8.1998 at about 2.00 p.m. The F.I.R was lodged on 7.9.1998. According to complainant, PW-1 Sukh Dev, he could not lodge the F.I.R in time because he had gone to attend some marriage. He has failed to give the details of the person whose marriage he attended; place where he attended the marriage and has only made a bald statement that he had gone to attend the marriage. This is no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. It may be true that delay in lodging the F.I.R by itself is not fatal but in a case the delay is not explained, then the prosecution evidence has to be examined more carefully. 4. In the present case, admittedly an F.I.R was earlier lodged by Rehmat Ali, who had filed the complaint against the complainant and others that they had beaten him up. 4. In the present case, admittedly an F.I.R was earlier lodged by Rehmat Ali, who had filed the complaint against the complainant and others that they had beaten him up. It is thus obvious that this present case was a counter blast to the case filed by Rehmat Ali and therefore, the delay in filing this F.I.R. Interestingly, PW-2 states that the accused was apprehended on 24.8.1998 and he compromised the matter on 25.8.1998 and promised to pay Rs.7,000/-. According to the complainant he was not present and therefore the delay in lodging the F.I.R. When he was not present with whom did the accused compromise the matter? This question remains totally unanswered. These two reasons by themselves are sufficient grounds to acquit the accused. 5. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the JUDGMENT of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.