IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.485 of 2001 Date of decision: 18.11.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Ram Bhaj and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Ms. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent s: Mr. B.N.Sharma, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Poanta Sahib dated 28.3.2001. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a challan was filed before the learned trial Court as against the respondents under Sections 41, 42, 52-A of Forest Act and under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. On consideration of the record, the learned trial Court framed change as against respondent Som Parkash under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and under Section 468 and Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 471 IPC. A Charge under Sections 41 and 42 of India Forest Act was framed as against the other respondent Ram Bhaj. Both the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned trial Court recorded the evidence of as many as 18 witnesses. Thereafter the case was fixed for the statement of PW Dharam Singh, Investigating Officer on 24.3.2001. The learned trial Court observed that the accused are willing to confess their guilt and pray for a short date for deliberation. The case was taken up on 28.3.2001, on which date, the learned trial Court recorded the statements of both the respondents in which they confessed their guilt and accordingly, both the respondents were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- each under Section 41/42 of the Forest Act and in default they were to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The respondent Som Parkash was further sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for one and half month. He was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month. I have heard the learned Dy. Advocate General for the State and Mr. B.N.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 3 The main question which arises for consideration is that once both the respondents had not admitted their guilt and claimed trial at the time of framing of charge, whether they can admit their guilt at a subsequent stage without submitting any application in writing. A perusal of the record shows that no written application was filed by both the respondents at any time seeking the permission of the Court to make their statement to confess their guilt. However, the learned trial Court, as already observed above, observed that the respondents are willing to confess their guilt and pray for a short date to make their statements and, accordingly, their statements were recorded at a subsequent date without any application having been submitted by the respondents in writing. I had asked the learned counsel for the parties to assist this Court as to whether this confession recorded by the learned trial Court without their being any application made in writing by the respondents to confess their guilt, is legally sustainable or not. However, no relevant case law has been cited on the point. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents had not admitted their guilt and claimed trial at the time of framing of the charge and the statements of most of the witnesses had been recorded during the protracted trial, I am of the opinion that the respondents had made a confessional statement at a belated stage. However, keeping in view the fact that this confessional statement was made on 28.3.2001 and the complaint was lodged in the year 1992 after a lapse of so many years, I am not inclined to 4 re-consider this plea raised by the learned Dy. Advocate General for enhancement of sentence at this belated stage and am not inclined to set aside the order confessing the guilt made by the respondents at this stage and I am also not inclined to send the case for fresh trial keeping in view the lapse of time in between the occurrence and the confessions made. However, it is made clear that this decision shall not be taken as a precedent by the subordinate Courts since I have not been assisted by the parties counsel with relevant case law. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that no case is made out by the appellant for enhancing the sentence passed by the trial Court and, as such, the appeal stands dismissed. November 18, 2008. (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)