STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HARI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the order dt. 16-3-1986 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Cr. Case No. 310/84 under Section 42 of the Forest Act, 1927 whereby the respondent No. 1 Hari Dass made confession of the guilt and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- along with co-accused respondent No. 2 Mohd. Haneef. The impugned order shows that respondent No. 1 Hari Dass made confession of the offence under Section 42 of the Forest Act on behalf of other co-accused respondent No. 2 Mohd Haneef. The fine of Rs. 150/- was deposited by respondent No. 1 Haridass.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. It is argued on behalf of the State that no accused person can confess the guilt on behalf of other co-accused, therefore, the confession of guilt by respondent No. 1 Hari Dass on behalf of respondent No. 2 Mohd. Haneef is illegal and by the Court to hold conviction of Shri Mohd. Haneef cannot be accepted. It is further argued that there is no provision in law to impose fine jointly on the accused persons. The fine should be imposed separately against each accused and, therefore, the impugned order is also illegal on account of imposing fine of Rs. 150/- jointly against the respondent. It is, therefore, submitted that the case may be remanded to the concerned Court for retrial.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the proceedings were conducted under Lok-Adalat and respondent No. 1 Hari Dass voluntarily made confession and the matter was disposed of by accepting and the confession of the guilt and fine was imposed on the respondents which was deposited by respondent No. 1. Hari Dass. It is argued that there does not appear to be such illegality or irregularity that the case may be remanded for retrial. It is further argued that the incident took place on 21-5-1984 and even if there is any procedure adopted against the law, then the proceedings may be dropped against respondents now in the interest of justice and the case should not be remanded for trial. The learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State opposes this contention.