Arun Kumar Goel, J.: .All the appellants alongwith Om Parkash son of Dhana Ram were challaned and prosecuted before the Special Judge, Shim la in Criminal Case No.30-S/7 of 1988. By means of impugned judgment dated 28-12-1989, appellants have been held guilty. Appellants Giaru Ram, Chattar Singh, Nathu Ram, Partap Singh and Dhana Ram were held guilty of offences I under Sections 120-B, 167,218,379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellant Dhana Ram was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, whereas other appellants, namely, Giaru Ram, Chattar Singh, Nathu Ram and Partap Singh were punished for offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 218 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the opinion of the trial court, none of the appellants was entitled to benefit of either under Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the sentences imposed upon each one of the appellants is as under: Sr. No. Name of appellant Offence U/Sec. Sentence

1. Dhana Ram 379IPC 33 of In Indian Forest Act One year R.I. and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default whereof, he will undergo further R.I. of 6 months. R.I. for 6 months and fine Rs.500/- in default of payment whereof 3 months R.I.

2. Chattar Singh 167 IPC One year R.I. 218 IPC -do- 5(2) of Prevevention of Corruption Act Two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default whereof, he will undergo further R.I. for 6 months.

3. Nathu Ram, -do- -do-

4. Partap Singh -do- -do-

5. Giaru Ram -do- -do- All sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and further trial court was of the view that there was no necessity to pass separate sentences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants have questioned this judgment passed by the trial court in the present appeal.

2. In order to properly appreciate the submissions of Shri. G. D. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is considered necessary to notice facts of this case. All the appellants and Om Parkash were prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 167, 218, 379, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to prosecution, all the persons accused in the case had entered into a conspiracy and as a consequence thereof, illicit demarcation was stated to have been given by Giaru Ram, field Kanungo and further the trees were illegally marked by forest officials, namely, Chattar Singh, Nathu Ram and Partap Singh. This conspiracy was hatched with a purpose to cause wrongful loss aimed at giving undue advantage to the appellant Dhana Ram. It was further case of the prosecution that either for obtaining personal gain for themselves or to provide the same to Dhana Ram and his son Om Parkash, this conspiracy was hatched by all the persons accused of the offences which resulted in causing substantial financial loss to the State, as the forest and revenue officials knowing well that it is their duty not only to give correct demarcation as also to mark the trees standing on the private land of the land owners, but also to ensure that no illicit felling takes place, besides it being also their duty to protect the government property in their capacity as public servants.

3. One Sukh Ram resident of village Khagna had entered into an agreement to sell standing trees on his land comprised in Khasras No.20 ,21, 18, 32, 40 and 52 to appellant Dhana Ram. Before the sale of these trees, the applicant Sukh Ram was required to get demarcation of his land, for which purpose he moved an application before the Tehsildar, Chopal. Another application was also moved by him before Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal for marking of trees after the demarcation had been undertaken by the revenue staff