Cr.A No.269/2001 17.05.2011 Present: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for the appellant-State. M/s B.C. Negi & Rohit Dheer, counsel for convict Khushal Chand. Convict Khushal Chand also in person. Respondent-convict Khushal Chand has been heard on the quantum of sentence. He says that he has not committed any crime and that he has no knowledge as to who had made alterations in his application as also revenue record. He has also stated that one of his married daughters, who has become widow alongwith her female child and a female child of his pre-deceased daughters, are also dependent upon him for their livelihood. Further he has pleaded that he has been hospitalized five times during the last four months for heart ailment and some other ailments, while his wife remains sick constantly and has to be hospitalized every 8th, 10th day. An application (Cr.MP No.311/2011) has also been filed, on behalf of the respondent-convict, for giving him the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. Respondent-convict has been convicted of offence, under Section 120-B, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The facts and the circumstances of the case are such, which negate his plea that he was unaware of the alterations in the revenue record and his application for exchange of land with another piece of land, which was granted to him under Nautor …2… Cr.A No.269/2001 Rules. The land, which had been allotted to him, as per record had only 14 trees, whereas he applied for felling 44 trees from that very land, which fact clearly shows that he was fully aware of the mischief that had been committed in the matter. His denying that he has committed any offence shows that he is not repentant. Also, the offence committed by him is of very serious nature, as noticed hereinabove. So, we do not think he is entitled to be given the benefit of probationary provisions of Law. Application (Cr.MP No.311/2011) is dismissed. We have considered the plea of the respondent- convict, with regard to quantum of sentence. Looking to the nature of the offence as also the fact that a large number of trees were felled, because of the criminal acts of the present convict and revenue & forest officials, we are of the considered view that he does not deserve any leniency, in the matter of award of punishment. So, we sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Jail warrants be prepared accordingly. Cr.MP No.286/2011 Dismissed, as withdrawn. Cr.MP No.287/2011 Infructuous. …2… Cr.A No.269/2001 A copy each of judgment dated 15th March, 2011 and this order be given to the respondent-convict, free of cost. (Surjit Singh), J. May 17, 2011(sd) (Rajiv Sharma), J.