Judgment :- 1. The Crl.R.C. is filed against the judgment dated 21.8.2009 in Crl.A.No.101 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Thiruppathur, Vellore District, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.51 of 1997 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate's Court (Sandalwood Cases), Thiruppathur, Vellore District, whereby the revision petitioner/accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 36-A & E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.7,500/-, in default, to undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 19.9.1996 at about 1 p.m., the revision petitioner/accused trespassed into "Kelur Kappukadu and Beed Thiruttu Mandapam" Forest Reserve, and he damaged the sandalwood tree and collected 506 Kgs. worth Rs.1,26,500/- and possessed the same without valid licence and hence, Form-A has been filed. On 19.9.1996 at about 12 noon, from Polur Forest Range Office, P.Ws.1 to 4 and Abdul Kalam, Kumar, Muthukrishnan were proceeding to the said Forest Reserve area, they caught hold of the revision petitioner/accused and when they made a search, at that time, they came to know that the revision petitioner/accused possessed 506 Kgs. of sandalwood without valid licence and hence, they have prepared Ex.P-2 mahazar and recorded the confession statement from the accused in Ex.P-3 and in respect of the properties, Form 95 has been prepared under Ex.P-5. Ex.P-4 sketch was also prepared. The properties have been handed over to the godown and after investigation, they have filed "C' Form Ex.P-8. The revision petitioner/accused was remanded to judicial custody. 3. The trial Court, after following the procedures, furnished the copies of documents to the accused, and the accused pleaded not guilty and the trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 and on the side of accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and found the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and convicted and sentenced him as stated above, against which, he preferred appeal and the first appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court, against which, the present Crl.R.C. is preferred by the revision petitioner/accused. 4. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused fairly conceded that he is not canvassing any point in respect of the conviction and he wanted leniency in the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused and he further submitted that the revision petitioner/accused is not habitual offender and a false case has been foisted against him, and it is his first case and prayed for the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused relied upon the decision of this Court reported in (Kumar and others Vs. State represented by Forest Range Officer, Vellore Range). 5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that except this case, there is no other case against the petitioner and this is his first case and the learned Government Advocate left it for the discretion of the Court for letting him free and release him under the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, and that the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused has not advanced any argument in respect of the conviction, I am forced to concur with the findings of both the Courts below and the revision petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence under Section 36-A & E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. 7. Now, this Court has to consider as to whether the revision petitioner/accused is entitled to the benefit as provided under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 8. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of this Court relied on by learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, reported in (cited supra), in which, it was held by this Court as follows: "10. In view of the circumstances pointed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the petitioners being the first time offenders and the petitioners had to face the protracted criminal proceedings for more than 15 years, this Court feels that it is not necessary to send the petitioners to jail. As this Court does not find any provision under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, barring the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioners could be released on Probation of Offenders Act. 11. In the result, the conviction imposed on the petitioners is confirmed. As this Court does not find any provision under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, barring the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioners could be released on Probation of Offenders Act. 11. In the result, the conviction imposed on the petitioners is confirmed. But the sentence imposed on them are set aside. The revision petitioners are released on probation of good conduct on entering into a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The fine amount paid by these petitioners shall be treated as compensation and costs as provided under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 12. Except the above modification, the revision petition is dismissed." 9. The above citation is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Applying the above citation to the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the revision petitioner/accused is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the present case, since the revision petitioner/accused is the first offender and he has been facing criminal proceedings for nearly 15 years, this Court feels that it is not necessary to send the revision petitioner/accused to jail. 10. Hence, the conviction imposed on the revision petitioner/accused is confirmed and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused is set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is released on probation of good conduct on entering into a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The fine amount paid by the revision petitioner/accused shall be treated as compensation and costs as provided under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 11. With the above observations, the Crl.R.C. is dismissed.